Gentoo Logo
Gentoo Spaceship

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
List Archive: gentoo-dev
Lists: gentoo-dev: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
To: Jon Portnoy <avenj@g.o>
From: Robin H.Johnson <robbat2@g.o>
Subject: Re: Re: [gentoo-core] Ebuild license question
Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 13:27:49 -0700
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:
> 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  :
ICQ#       : 30269588 or 41961639
GnuPG FP   : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED  F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85
pgpksEB8ARUrF.pgp (PGP signature)
Ebuild license question
-- Robin H . Johnson
Re: [gentoo-core] Ebuild license question
-- Jon Portnoy
Lists: gentoo-dev: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Previous by thread:
Re: [gentoo-core] Ebuild license question
Next by thread:
Re: [gentoo-core] Ebuild license question
Previous by date:
New global USE flag
Next by date:
Re: XEmacs and XEmacs-gtk

Updated Jun 17, 2009

Summary: Archive of the gentoo-dev mailing list.

Donate to support our development efforts.

Copyright 2001-2013 Gentoo Foundation, Inc. Questions, Comments? Contact us.