| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA256 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On 23/09/12 08:10 AM, hasufell wrote: |
| 5 |
> On 09/23/2012 02:04 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
| 6 |
>> If we really decide to move things to a new license file, then |
| 7 |
>> I'd rather avoid the name "as-is" because it is partly the reason |
| 8 |
>> for the confusion. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> I agree on that. I saw it more than once that people use "as-is" |
| 11 |
> for the license, just because there is an "as is" clause. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
What about having some "snippet" licenses that could be amalgomated |
| 16 |
as-needed for a package? |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
IE: |
| 19 |
- -'as-is' would be the generic "as-is" statement |
| 20 |
- -'free-non-commercial' would be a "free/unrestricted for |
| 21 |
non-commercial use" statement |
| 22 |
- -'free-unrestricted' would be a statement of more or less public domain |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
- -..etc... |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
..and then ebuilds can include the particular phrases that apply? ie, |
| 28 |
LICENSE="(as-is free-non-commercial)" , essentially an |
| 29 |
'assemble-your-own-license' from the snippets. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 34 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
iF4EAREIAAYFAlBgWagACgkQ2ugaI38ACPDY2wD9EnVU9c1E6xW7o2pOhJbj8ocW |
| 37 |
KHdXq0qiK156X4RFPCEBAJ4aNaEsF0cy615RLOjFm1r/vqNRcX5t91g+1psaNbiC |
| 38 |
=gwvg |
| 39 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives