I wrote sys-freebsd/virtio-kmod (bug 410199) while studying
Gentoo/FreeBSD as part of an attempt to port gptzfsloader to Gentoo
Linux. naota wrote an improvement that would be useful to send upstream.
However, the GPL-2 license poses a problem according to conversations
that I had in #gentoo-dev.
On Fri, 30 Mar 2012 12:34:26 -0400
Richard Yao r...@cs.stonybrook.edu wrote:
I wrote sys-freebsd/virtio-kmod (bug 410199) while studying
Gentoo/FreeBSD as part of an attempt to port gptzfsloader to Gentoo
Linux. naota wrote an improvement that would be useful to send
upstream. However, the
On 03/30/12 13:34, Alexis Ballier wrote:
On Fri, 30 Mar 2012 12:34:26 -0400
Richard Yao r...@cs.stonybrook.edu wrote:
I wrote sys-freebsd/virtio-kmod (bug 410199) while studying
Gentoo/FreeBSD as part of an attempt to port gptzfsloader to Gentoo
Linux. naota wrote an improvement that would
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 01:52:18PM -0400, Richard Yao wrote:
The improvement is to the ebuild itself. It is a variable containing a
list of directories upon which the module's build system depends.
I spoke to naota and he doesn't have any problem sending this upstream,
so I sent an email
On 03/30/12 13:52, Richard Yao wrote:
I want sys-freebsd/virtio-kmod to be BSD-2 licensed, but I do not expect
the version that enters the portage tree to be BSD-2 licensed unless
people clarify that it is okay to license ebuilds under something other
than the GPL-2.
To clarify, I would like
On 03/30/12 14:00, Jon Portnoy wrote:
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 01:52:18PM -0400, Richard Yao wrote:
The improvement is to the ebuild itself. It is a variable containing a
list of directories upon which the module's build system depends.
I spoke to naota and he doesn't have any problem sending
On Fri, 30 Mar 2012, Richard Yao wrote:
what do you mean by 'relicense' ? for ebuilds, you'll have to ask
permission to all contributors to this area, and, afaik, the
foundation owns copyrights so it has a word to say too.
if you mean the 'LICENSE' field of ebuilds, then this is not the
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org wrote:
Ebuilds in the Portage tree must be licensed under the GPL. This is
part of the Gentoo Social Contract [1], so I guess it won't change
anytime soon.
And IMHO, we would be ill-advised to allow different licenses for
On 03/30/12 14:47, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
I fail to understand what the license of the ebuild has to do with the
license of the package itself.
It has nothing to do with the license of the package. That is completely
separate. This has to do with the license of the ebuild itself.
FreeBSD Ports
On 03/30/12 15:12, Rich Freeman wrote:
If there are specific pains associated with not being able to submit
patches upstream or such, please do point them out and I'm sure we'll
consider what can be done to accommodate this. However, if this
really is a one-off situation then we're probably
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 12:36 PM, Richard Yao r...@cs.stonybrook.edu wrote:
On 03/30/12 14:47, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
I fail to understand what the license of the ebuild has to do with the
license of the package itself.
It has nothing to do with the license of the package. That is completely
On 03/30/2012 15:36, Richard Yao wrote:
It has nothing to do with the license of the package. That is completely
separate. This has to do with the license of the ebuild itself.
FreeBSD Ports inspired Daniel Robbins to create Portage. The issue that
is our ability to share FreeBSD-specific
On 03/30/12 16:19, Alec Warner wrote:
I doubt you can get the content re-licensed under a different
license. You may be able to convince folks to add an additional
license (|| (GPL-2 BSD-2)). That way Gentoo keeps its GPL-2 and
freebsd can have the code as BSD-2.
Dual-licensing is fine by me.
13 matches
Mail list logo
