1 |
Harald van Dijk wrote: |
2 |
> On Tue, Dec 27, 2005 at 01:01:10AM -0600, R Hill wrote: |
3 |
> |
4 |
>>>Removing these files and relying on LICENSE=foo in the ebuild could be seen as |
5 |
>>>a copyright violation. There are lots of samples in /usr/src/licenses that |
6 |
>>>aren't generic, but include a copyright notice naming the authors of a |
7 |
>>>particular piece of software, but it doesn't match with all packages under |
8 |
>>>this license of course. Take ZLIB as example. Since I'm not a lawyer I might |
9 |
>>>be wrong, but me thinks it would make sense to ask one. |
10 |
>> |
11 |
>>AFAIK most licenses need to be included with the distribution of the source, not |
12 |
>>installed on the system after compilation. But I could be wrong too. |
13 |
> |
14 |
> |
15 |
> There are exceptions, a popular one being BSD. |
16 |
> |
17 |
> * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright |
18 |
> * notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the |
19 |
> * documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. |
20 |
> |
21 |
> As a quick example, iputils is BSD-licensed and does not install or |
22 |
> reproduce its license, so does this cause problems for iputils binpkgs? |
23 |
|
24 |
We are not redistributing anything in binary form when installing |
25 |
programs. This all happens on the users computers. We are distributing |
26 |
upstream source tarballs verbatim of course. If the license should be |
27 |
installed, shouldn't the upstream make install take care of it then? |
28 |
|
29 |
Regards, |
30 |
Petteri |