| 1 |
On 12/21/2012 03:22 PM, Richard Yao wrote: |
| 2 |
> Dear Everyone, |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> sys-libs/glibc contains LICENSE="LGPL-2", but it would appear to be |
| 5 |
> subject to roughly a dozen licenses, many of which are not in the tree? |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> http://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=blob;f=LICENSES;h=80f7f1487947f57815b9fe076fadc8c7f94eeb8e;hb=HEAD |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> I can spot BSD-4, ISC and sun-rpc. There is also a license that |
| 10 |
> intel-ucode, but has had the provisions changed. There are also numerous |
| 11 |
> other licenses that I am seeing for the first time. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Does anyone have any thoughts on how we should handle this? |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Yours truly, |
| 16 |
> Richard Yao |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
I had a chat with ulm. BSD-4 is really BSD-3 because of the following |
| 20 |
line that I missed: |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
>3. [This condition was removed.] |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
According to ulm, the appropriate licenses are BSD HPND ISC LGPL-2.1+ rc |
| 25 |
PCRE. PCRE isn't in the tree yet, but it needs to be introduced as part |
| 26 |
of as-is cleanup. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Also, the license that resembled intel-ucode is effectively BSD-3. |
Archives