| 1 |
On 16/06/05, Marius Mauch <genone@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 00:12:30 +0200 |
| 3 |
> Torsten Veller <tove@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> > Ok, here is a license: <http://rafb.net/paste/results/j88sYC87.html> |
| 6 |
> > I couldn't decide if this one is present already. |
| 7 |
> > All i have checked are slightly different. Maybe someone knows ;) |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > If it is not in licenses/, can someone suggest a name for this one? |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Looks like as-is. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Reclassifying a license based on what it "looks like" and then |
| 14 |
redistributing software puts Gentoo into an undesirable legal |
| 15 |
position. Gentoo developers are not IP lawyers - none of us I have the |
| 16 |
training to assess whether two licenses are equal. Additionally, many |
| 17 |
license texts are actually based on something like as-is, but with |
| 18 |
minor changes. Unless a package explicity says "this software is |
| 19 |
distributed under the xxx license", then it shouldn't be classed as |
| 20 |
being under that license - developers have no right to represent the |
| 21 |
license of a package as being anything other than a perfect |
| 22 |
reproduction of the license in the package archive. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives