List Archive: gentoo-dev
Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date.
provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.c.f. bug 424647
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 05:15:06PM -0500, Richard Freeman wrote:
> On 12/28/2009 01:56 PM, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> >Actually, this is a case where the license on the ebuild is wrong, not
> >the license group. The kernel ebuilds should have GPL-2 and something
> >else, and by definition should not pass @FSF-APPROVED alone.
> Is this appropriate? The kernel sources indicate that they are
> licensed under GPLv2, and they make no mention of other licenses for
> any component of the sources.
You're wrong there. The kernel does contain additional licenses, and
EXPLICITLY mentions them. Go and read 'firmware/WHENCE'.
The licenses listed therein range from use-permitted only
no-modification, to GPL-compliant and BSD-like.
> For that matter, for all we know kdelibs contains 10 lines of code
> from Jack Smith, who didn't agree to the LGPL and those 10 lines are
> under the Jack Smith Distribution License. However, it would be
> best if Jack Smith were to take this up with the KDE team and not
> with every distro that uses KDE.
I'm not concerned with a case such as the above. "Jack Smith" needs to
take it up with KDE.
> If Gentoo starts second-guessing the licenses on packages, do we
> then become liable if we fail to do this for a package?
There is no second-guessing. What I am concerned with is that Gentoo's
statement of licensing does not accurately reflect what licenses are on
Robin Hugh Johnson
Gentoo Linux: Developer, Trustee & Infrastructure Lead
E-Mail : email@example.com
GnuPG FP : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85