| 1 |
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 20:17:48 -0600 |
| 2 |
Ryan Hill <dirtyepic@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Should LICENSE changes require a revision bump? |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
No. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Any ebuild should be published with a correct reference to a license. |
| 9 |
If you initially publish the ebuild with a bad reference, you simply |
| 10 |
correct it later on. It's not as if *you* incorrectly published the |
| 11 |
software anew - you just tagged on the wrong license initially, and by |
| 12 |
referring to the wrong license, you aren't somehow magically relicensing |
| 13 |
the software. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
As for the technical bit - when a user cannot install something because |
| 16 |
the license is masked by his package manager, and he discovers that the |
| 17 |
wrong license was attached, then he can do and should do two things: |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
1) notify the ebuild's maintainer(s) that the wrong license is being |
| 20 |
referred to. |
| 21 |
2) unmask the license, confident that the reference in the ebuild is |
| 22 |
wrong, now that he's personally checked it. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Kind regards, |
| 26 |
JeR |
Archives