| 1 |
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Alexandre Rostovtsev |
| 2 |
<tetromino@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> If "as-is" will be removed from @GPL_COMPATIBLE, what gpl-compatible |
| 5 |
> license should I use instead for such packages? |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
HPND as long as the license meets the description within the file. If |
| 8 |
you've been applying the logic you stated that should generally be the |
| 9 |
case. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Making the default to not be @gpl_compatible is a good move. That way |
| 12 |
we ensure everything gets positive review. The only alternative would |
| 13 |
be to do a scan and log a bazillion bugs for everybody to do a check |
| 14 |
and then take some kind of action for those that don't respond. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Rich |
Archives