| 1 |
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 15:22:36 -0600 Mike Doty <kingtaco@g.o> |
| 3 |
> wrote: |
| 4 |
> | Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 5 |
> | > On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 08:53:36 +0100 Marius Mauch <genone@g.o> |
| 6 |
> | > wrote: |
| 7 |
> | > | Anyone interested in this feature should review the attached |
| 8 |
> | > | version. Unless there are major objections (or we find large |
| 9 |
> | > | problems in the implementation) this will be merged in one of the |
| 10 |
> | > | next portage releases (definitely not in 2.1.2 though). |
| 11 |
> | > |
| 12 |
> | > 133594 will need to be fixed before this is usable for most users. |
| 13 |
> | > |
| 14 |
> | I'm sure it's been talked about before, but the ability to group |
| 15 |
> | licenses would solve that. Just create a X.Org license group and add |
| 16 |
> | all the individual modular X licenses to it. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> And then create a KDE licence group, and a Gnome licence group, and so |
| 19 |
> on? Remember that there are only a few X licences once you ignore |
| 20 |
> copyright line differences, just as there are only a few KDE licences |
| 21 |
> once you ignore copyright line differences. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
The other option is to submit patches for X and KDE and Gnome to use a |
| 24 |
unified license. At least in the X case, it's not that the patches |
| 25 |
arn't welcome, it's that the maintainers have things more important to |
| 26 |
do than cleaning up after the mess upstream made of the licenses. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives