| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA256 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On 24/09/12 06:46 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 5 |
> On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 3:02 AM, Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> |
| 6 |
> wrote: |
| 7 |
>> Unfortunately, it's not clear from our documentation if the |
| 8 |
>> LICENSE variable applies to the source tarball or to the files |
| 9 |
>> that the package installs on the user's system. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Hmm, if these aren't the same, then more likely than not something |
| 12 |
> is wrong, but perhaps we'll have to confront this issue at some |
| 13 |
> point. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
After the debate on IRC that spawn the request to add GPL-2 to LICENSE |
| 17 |
for all the packages that install init scripts, I would expect that |
| 18 |
the LICENSE applies primarily to the installed-image but when |
| 19 |
necessary/different would also apply to an upstream distfile and its |
| 20 |
contents. However, it is safe to exclude licenses of patches, |
| 21 |
contributed files, etc. that are stored in ${FILESDIR}. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Is this interpretation correct? |
| 24 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 25 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
iF4EAREIAAYFAlBgXgoACgkQ2ugaI38ACPCxkgEAqydntc6k6YcC3lce2aaxMUSy |
| 28 |
csX3CfTcsKA04TDeZskA/30v+V6G1JXaTUocI4BszvzYqUvt6b+go3uJI+I0LUnn |
| 29 |
=8B/x |
| 30 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives