| 1 |
On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 07:15:28AM +1200, Kent Fredric wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 12:47:20 -0500 |
| 3 |
> William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> > Sorry, That train already left the station with the golang-* eclasses |
| 6 |
> > and there is nothing we can do about it. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Saying "this creates a legal problem" followed by "eh, nothing we can |
| 9 |
> do about it, carry on" really doesn't work in reality, as far as I'm |
| 10 |
> aware. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Usually if you find yourself rationalizing around a legal problem, you |
| 13 |
> end up getting bitten by said legal problem. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
After chatting a bit more about this on IRC, let me clarify. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
This is an issue that is not related to the eclass, but an |
| 18 |
example package (patch 3 isn't the eclass, it is just an example of how |
| 19 |
to use it). There is no LICENSE setting in the eclass, so it doesn't |
| 20 |
affect the eclass. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
What I was advised is that we are all supposed to audit our packages and |
| 23 |
make sure LICENSE= is correct. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
William |
Archives