Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: "Robin H.Johnson" <robbat2@g.o>
To: Jon Portnoy <avenj@g.o>
Cc: gentoo-dev@g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] Ebuild license question
Date: Fri, 09 May 2003 20:27:51
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] Ebuild license question by Jon Portnoy
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@××××××××××××××.net Home Page : ICQ# : 30269588 or 41961639 GnuPG FP : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85