| 1 |
Ryan Hill wrote: |
| 2 |
> On the other hand, it also seems completely ridiculous from a practical |
| 3 |
> POV to have to wait 30 days (and waste arch team resources) to fix an |
| 4 |
> incorrect licence on a stable package. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
And have everyone recompile the package, thus wasting cpu cycles and |
| 7 |
users' time. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
I would have to imagine that if upstream changed the license that the |
| 10 |
old installation would be covered by the old license. What do binary |
| 11 |
distributions do if an upstream changes the license? ;) Or are we |
| 12 |
talking about dev error here? |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
-Jeremy |
Archives