1 |
On Fri, May 09, 2003 at 04:21:06PM -0400, Jon Portnoy wrote: |
2 |
> > Instead of creating a new libcap license file, I think we should |
3 |
> > abstract the package name in PAM/PWDB and point all 3 items to this. |
4 |
> > Possible name is $PORTAGE/licenses/BSD_GPL |
5 |
> Dual licenses are usually done like: |
6 |
> |
7 |
> LICENSE="BSD GPL-2" |
8 |
> |
9 |
> Any reason that wouldn't apply here? |
10 |
I asked because PAM and PWDB seem to have their own license files rather |
11 |
than that common dual license solution. If you look at their license |
12 |
files, there is a single additional clause in addition to the BSD/GPL-2 |
13 |
licenses to make them compatible together (otherwise according to FSF |
14 |
they aren't). |
15 |
|
16 |
-- |
17 |
Robin Hugh Johnson |
18 |
E-Mail : robbat2@××××××××××××××.net |
19 |
Home Page : http://www.orbis-terrarum.net/?l=people.robbat2 |
20 |
ICQ# : 30269588 or 41961639 |
21 |
GnuPG FP : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85 |