1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
3 |
|
4 |
I noticed this a while ago. See bug 18951. |
5 |
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18951 |
6 |
|
7 |
On Friday 09 May 2003 08:01 pm, Robin H.Johnson wrote: |
8 |
> [copied to -core because of license stuff, please reply on -dev] |
9 |
> |
10 |
> I'm putting together an ebuild for libcap (bug #2333), and I ran into |
11 |
> something in the tree. |
12 |
> |
13 |
> The license included with it wasn't one I had seen myself before so I |
14 |
> was checking if it was in $PORTAGE/licenses. I see that all of libcap, |
15 |
> PAM and PWDB have identical licenses (except for the same of the |
16 |
> package). |
17 |
> |
18 |
> The license in question seems to a dual BSD/GPL license. |
19 |
> |
20 |
> Instead of creating a new libcap license file, I think we should |
21 |
> abstract the package name in PAM/PWDB and point all 3 items to this. |
22 |
> Possible name is $PORTAGE/licenses/BSD_GPL |
23 |
> |
24 |
> Comments/For/Against/Flames? |
25 |
|
26 |
- -- |
27 |
Luke-Jr |
28 |
Newbie Application Developer, Gentoo Linux |
29 |
http://www.gentoo.org/ |
30 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
31 |
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) |
32 |
|
33 |
iD8DBQE+vFW/Zl/BHdU+lYMRArR/AJ4puuS0DUl0X/s1pYp1eQlCIfJgtwCcCWsb |
34 |
deqFAwsKvniun4yskdkKz7s= |
35 |
=nlwF |
36 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
37 |
|
38 |
|
39 |
-- |
40 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |