[gentoo-user] Re-Distro
Are there any legalities behind creating your own set of installation CDs or DVDs - which contain specific packages available through the Gentoo repository and exclude other default ones - for distribution to clients? Email Disclaimer http://www.aplitec.co.za/emaildisclaimer.htm -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-user] Re-Distro
Are there any legalities behind creating your own set of installation CDs or DVDs - which contain specific packages available through the Gentoo repository and exclude other default ones - for distribution to clients? Email Disclaimer http://www.aplitec.co.za/emaildisclaimer.htm -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Re-Distro
On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 10:01:07 +0200, Mark Humphrey wrote: Are there any legalities behind creating your own set of installation CDs or DVDs - which contain specific packages available through the Gentoo repository and exclude other default ones - for distribution to clients? I hope not, I've created many tens of thousands of these for distribution! You do need to watch the licences of the individual packages. Some of those have distribution restrictions, some are not even included on the Gentoo mirrors, but you would know that unless you checked the ebuilds or where each one was downloaded from. -- Neil Bothwick I have nothing but respect for you, and not much of that. pgp7Lw9MbFSa7.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Re-Distro
On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 10:01:07 +0200 Mark Humphrey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | Are there any legalities behind creating your own set of installation | CDs or DVDs - which contain specific packages available through the | Gentoo repository and exclude other default ones - for distribution to | clients? 1. Various core Gentoo things which you might be modifying are covered by the GPL. 2. Various packages have licences which prohibit either redistributing the source, or redistributing the package in binary form, or redistributing a modified package in binary form. 3. Some packages have weird trademark restrictions to do with shipping modified binaries. Anything Mozillaish comes to mind... -- Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Shell tools, Fluxbox, Cron) Mail: ciaranm at gentoo.org Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm pgplOhDsLfpMg.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Re-Distro
On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 16:36:07 +0100 Neil Bothwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 15:38:03 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: | 2. Various packages have licences which prohibit either | redistributing the source, or redistributing the package in binary | form, or redistributing a modified package in binary form. | | Some even have mixed licences within the same package, win32codecs | comes to mind, so grepping the ebuilds for LICENCE isn't enough. If that's the case, you may have found a bug. LICENSE supports syntax which allows specifying multiple 'and' or 'either-or' licences. -- Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Shell tools, Fluxbox, Cron) Mail: ciaranm at gentoo.org Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm pgpQLAQJe3U7H.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Re-Distro
On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 18:33:21 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: | Some even have mixed licences within the same package, win32codecs | comes to mind, so grepping the ebuilds for LICENCE isn't enough. If that's the case, you may have found a bug. LICENSE supports syntax which allows specifying multiple 'and' or 'either-or' licences. OK, I'll try and find the ebuilds I'm thinking of (win32codecs and netscape-flash ring a bell as being troublesome) but I'll have to check. -- Neil Bothwick By the time you can make ends meet, they move the ends. pgpcOxYtZTIna.pgp Description: PGP signature
