| 1 |
Nirbheek Chauhan a écrit : |
| 2 |
> The x11 team[1] came to the conclusion that following RedHat's lead |
| 3 |
> and just using MIT as license for Xorg packages should suffice since |
| 4 |
> they are quite careful about these things. This should definitely be |
| 5 |
> better than the current practice anyway. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
That's indeed my plan. All the X packages I've checked in Fedora's cvs |
| 8 |
have MIT as the license. I think this will definitely help clean up |
| 9 |
gentoo-x86/license. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
As long as we all agree that LICENSE is only informational (ie, we try |
| 12 |
to do our best but comes with no guarantee). For the record, even simple |
| 13 |
X packages such as libs and/or protos may have 2 or more |
| 14 |
similar-but-not-identical license headers in various files, dozens of |
| 15 |
copyright holders. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
So anyone doing _serious_ license work on X packages shouldn't even rely |
| 18 |
on what we currently provide as those licenses may not reflect the |
| 19 |
actual license of all files in our packages. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Bottom line, everyone considers them to be MIT/X11 which seems to be |
| 22 |
fairly accurate. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
My plan is to go over each package as time permits, check the license |
| 25 |
and then make the x-modular eclass set the default license to MIT |
| 26 |
instead of ${PN}. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
I could definitely use a hand to check all those packages :) |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Cheers, |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Rémi |
Archives