| 1 |
* Justin schrieb am 21.03.12 um 16:14 Uhr: |
| 2 |
> On 21.03.2012 15:48, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On 21/03/12 10:34 AM, Richard Yao wrote: |
| 4 |
> >> On 03/21/12 10:18, Justin wrote: |
| 5 |
> >>> I will not extract part of the software, e.g. subroutines, for |
| 6 |
> >>> use in other contexts without permission of the author. |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> >> Portage could be considered to be one of these contexts. |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > If the entire package is installed (ie, it's not broken up into |
| 12 |
> > separate libraries or sub-packages) this would be fine (ie having the |
| 13 |
> > package in portage), wouldn't it? |
| 14 |
> > |
| 15 |
> > I guess the primary restriction here would be that nothing else would |
| 16 |
> > be allowed to link against any embedded libraries; ie, the package |
| 17 |
> > couldn't be a dep. |
| 18 |
> > |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> It simply creates one binary which I am interested in. I don't see any |
| 21 |
> problem if I use fetch restriction. The only remaining question would be |
| 22 |
> the actual LICENSE? |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
How about asking the authors? Maybe they are fine with mirroring too |
| 25 |
if updates they publish will be mirrored too. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
If you get the permission to do it, it might be fine. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-Marc |
| 30 |
Disclaimer: IANAL |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
0x35A64134 - 8AAC 5F46 83B4 DB70 8317 3723 296C 6CCA 35A6 4134 |
Archives