Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date.
GMANE provides an alternative service for most mailing lists. c.f. bug 424647
On Fri, May 09, 2003 at 04:21:06PM -0400, Jon Portnoy wrote:
> > 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
> Dual licenses are usually done like:
>
> LICENSE="BSD GPL-2"
>
> Any reason that wouldn't apply here?
I asked because PAM and PWDB seem to have their own license files rather
than that common dual license solution. If you look at their license
files, there is a single additional clause in addition to the BSD/GPL-2
licenses to make them compatible together (otherwise according to FSF
they aren't).
--
Robin Hugh Johnson
E-Mail : robbat2@...
Home Page : http://www.orbis-terrarum.net/?l=people.robbat2
ICQ# : 30269588 or 41961639
GnuPG FP : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85
|
|
