| 1 |
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 05:15:06PM -0500, Richard Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 12/28/2009 01:56 PM, Robin H. Johnson wrote: |
| 3 |
> >Actually, this is a case where the license on the ebuild is wrong, not |
| 4 |
> >the license group. The kernel ebuilds should have GPL-2 and something |
| 5 |
> >else, and by definition should not pass @FSF-APPROVED alone. |
| 6 |
> Is this appropriate? The kernel sources indicate that they are |
| 7 |
> licensed under GPLv2, and they make no mention of other licenses for |
| 8 |
> any component of the sources. |
| 9 |
You're wrong there. The kernel does contain additional licenses, and |
| 10 |
EXPLICITLY mentions them. Go and read 'firmware/WHENCE'. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
The licenses listed therein range from use-permitted only |
| 13 |
no-modification, to GPL-compliant and BSD-like. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
> For that matter, for all we know kdelibs contains 10 lines of code |
| 16 |
> from Jack Smith, who didn't agree to the LGPL and those 10 lines are |
| 17 |
> under the Jack Smith Distribution License. However, it would be |
| 18 |
> best if Jack Smith were to take this up with the KDE team and not |
| 19 |
> with every distro that uses KDE. |
| 20 |
I'm not concerned with a case such as the above. "Jack Smith" needs to |
| 21 |
take it up with KDE. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
> If Gentoo starts second-guessing the licenses on packages, do we |
| 24 |
> then become liable if we fail to do this for a package? |
| 25 |
There is no second-guessing. What I am concerned with is that Gentoo's |
| 26 |
statement of licensing does not accurately reflect what licenses are on |
| 27 |
the package. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
Robin Hugh Johnson |
| 31 |
Gentoo Linux: Developer, Trustee & Infrastructure Lead |
| 32 |
E-Mail : robbat2@g.o |
| 33 |
GnuPG FP : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85 |
Archives