| 1 |
On Friday 04 September 2009 16:01:41 Rémi Cardona wrote: |
| 2 |
> For instance, I'm still working on migrating all the X11 packages to the |
| 3 |
> "MIT" license (mainly for cleaning purposes), but in fact, each and |
| 4 |
> every package should have its own license file (like today) because the |
| 5 |
> MIT license requires that we acknowledge all major contributions to the |
| 6 |
> code. Therefore, using a template like ${PORTAGE}/licences/MIT does is |
| 7 |
> probably not a good idea from a legal point of view. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Is that really a problem? I admit to not being around for the original design |
| 10 |
decisions, but I would assume that the purpose of having LICENSE in ebuilds |
| 11 |
is to tell users what licence the package is under (whether or not it's |
| 12 |
accurate is a different matter), and the purpose of having the licences |
| 13 |
themselves in the tree is so that it's easy for users to look them up and |
| 14 |
decide whether they want to accept the conditions or not. For that purpose, |
| 15 |
the exact list of credits is irrelevant. Also, I'm not a lawyer, but I would |
| 16 |
think that the licence's requirement for credit is satisfied by the credits |
| 17 |
being included in the source code - it doesn't require acknowledgement when |
| 18 |
merely talking about the software or stating the fact that it's under a |
| 19 |
particular licence, just when distributing it. |
Archives