| 1 |
Spider wrote: [Sat Nov 22 2003, 04:43:10PM EST] |
| 2 |
> in a case where you can choose to accept either the MPL or the GPL for |
| 3 |
> example, the license should be |
| 4 |
> LICENSE="GPL | MPL" |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> And if its for example either released as FPL (Foo package License ) or |
| 7 |
> GPL+ LGPL parts, it should be : |
| 8 |
> LICENSE="FPL | (GPL LGPL)" |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> This is the logic that "makes sense" for me. in a case where its |
| 11 |
> multiple licensed, you have to agree to all such licenses, or it won't |
| 12 |
> match. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
This is fine with me, and I can go ahead and fix the colorschemes |
| 15 |
package. I guess this would necessitate a rev bump if ACCEPT_LICENSES |
| 16 |
were implemented so that users would be properly informed, but since |
| 17 |
ACCEPT_LICENSES isn't implemented yet, I won't bump the rev. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
I suppose that other packages can be fixed as we go along, but this |
| 20 |
information needs to be added to the developer's guide / ebuild-writing |
| 21 |
guide / skel.ebuild. Swift? |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Before we go any further, does this warrant a GLEP or can we implement |
| 24 |
as a bug-fix to 17367? It seems to me that all voices have been |
| 25 |
supportive so far, even if there are different opinions (/me waves to |
| 26 |
Matt Kennedy) regarding free/non-free software in Gentoo. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Aron |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
Aron Griffis |
| 32 |
Gentoo Linux Developer (alpha / ia64 / ruby / vim) |
| 33 |
Key fingerprint = E3B6 8734 C2D6 B5E5 AE76 FB3A 26B1 C5E3 2010 4EB0 |
Archives