Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Luke-Jr <luke-jr@g.o>
To: "Robin H.Johnson" <robbat2@g.o>, gentoo-dev@g.o
Cc: gentoo-core@g.o
Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] Ebuild license question
Date: Sat, 10 May 2003 01:28:40
Message-Id: 200305100128.35342.luke-jr@gentoo.org
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] Ebuild license question by "Robin H.Johnson"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I noticed this a while ago. See bug 18951.
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18951

On Friday 09 May 2003 08:01 pm, Robin H.Johnson wrote:
> [copied to -core because of license stuff, please reply on -dev] > > I'm putting together an ebuild for libcap (bug #2333), and I ran into > something in the tree. > > The license included with it wasn't one I had seen myself before so I > was checking if it was in $PORTAGE/licenses. I see that all of libcap, > PAM and PWDB have identical licenses (except for the same of the > package). > > The license in question seems to a dual BSD/GPL license. > > Instead of creating a new libcap license file, I think we should > abstract the package name in PAM/PWDB and point all 3 items to this. > Possible name is $PORTAGE/licenses/BSD_GPL > > Comments/For/Against/Flames?
- -- Luke-Jr Newbie Application Developer, Gentoo Linux http://www.gentoo.org/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+vFW/Zl/BHdU+lYMRArR/AJ4puuS0DUl0X/s1pYp1eQlCIfJgtwCcCWsb deqFAwsKvniun4yskdkKz7s= =nlwF -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list