| 1 |
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 02:00:57PM +0200, Krzysiek Pawlik wrote: |
| 2 |
> Jon Portnoy wrote: |
| 3 |
> >>Symlink? If MIT == MetaKit, then: |
| 4 |
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ |
| 5 |
> >>ln -s MIT MetaKit |
| 6 |
> > I don't know about this specific case but generally speaking licenses |
| 7 |
> > that're similar in language and intent have very small (often cosmetic) |
| 8 |
> > differences; if there is even the slightest difference it (legally) |
| 9 |
> > qualifies as a different license and probably really should be included |
| 10 |
> > separately to be safe |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Exactly my point :) I've looked at MIT and MetaKit and: |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> +Copyright (c) 1996-2001 Jean-Claude Wippler |
| 15 |
> -Copyright (c) <year> <copyright holders> |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> Except formatting and above diff theye are identical. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
You're right; chances are this is a mistake on the part of whoever |
| 21 |
wrote/committed the MetaKit ebuild, it probably had a 'COPYING' file and |
| 22 |
whoever reviewed it didn't recognize the MIT license. File a bug |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Either way the point still stands as far as licenses in general go 8) |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
Jon Portnoy |
| 28 |
avenj/irc.freenode.net |
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives