Peter Cech wrote:
What leads you to believe the license texts distributed in portage tree
are legaly binding with respect to the packages? Each packgage carries
(or at least should carry) its license embeded inside. In my
understanding, licanse pointers in ebuilds are purely informative and
all
On Sun, Jan 22, 2006 at 02:59:39PM -0700, Joshua Baergen wrote:
> Joshua Baergen wrote:
> >The reasons that this system was chosen were correctness and
> >maintainability. Many of these essentially use the good old MIT
> >license with various companies' and/or individuals' copyrights at the
> >
Joshua Baergen wrote:
The reasons that this system was chosen were correctness and
maintainability. Many of these essentially use the good old MIT
license with various companies' and/or individuals' copyrights at the
top, as you have stated. However, the MIT license does refer to the
copyrig
On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 09:53:53 -0700 Joshua Baergen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > So you propose we go through and change every package in the tree
| > that uses BSD or MIT (or GPL with the copyright disclaimer)?
|
| I propose that we decide on the correct way of doing thing
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
So you propose we go through and change every package in the tree that
uses BSD or MIT (or GPL with the copyright disclaimer)?
I propose that we decide on the correct way of doing things first, then
decide a plan of action from that. And that includes an opinion from
On Saturday 21 January 2006 09:08, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Were that the case, we'd do as Debian do and distribute a licence with
> every single package.
I bet there're more than a few ebuilds where this isn't the case. You can't
even blame anyone, since there's no proper licence section in the
On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 00:41:06 -0700 Joshua Baergen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| The reasons that this system was chosen were correctness and
| maintainability. Many of these essentially use the good old MIT
| license with various companies' and/or individuals' copyrights at the
| top, as you have
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
The duplicate licences situation is getting rather silly... We don't
include each variation for licences that vary only by the copyright
holder (if we did, we'd need a zillion new GPL-2s and BSDs, but instead
they just use s), and we don't care about whitespace
variations.
The duplicate licences situation is getting rather silly... We don't
include each variation for licences that vary only by the copyright
holder (if we did, we'd need a zillion new GPL-2s and BSDs, but instead
they just use s), and we don't care about whitespace
variations.
Also note that if a prog
