| 1 |
Joshua Baergen wrote: |
| 2 |
> The reasons that this system was chosen were correctness and |
| 3 |
> maintainability. Many of these essentially use the good old MIT |
| 4 |
> license with various companies' and/or individuals' copyrights at the |
| 5 |
> top, as you have stated. However, the MIT license does refer to the |
| 6 |
> copyrights within the license script itself, and many of the licenses |
| 7 |
> have been slightly altered to include a company's name directly. I'm |
| 8 |
> no lawyer, but to me this means that the license does indeed include |
| 9 |
> the copyright. (Note that I'm not intricately familiar with other |
| 10 |
> licenses that often have copyrights associated, so I don't know if MIT |
| 11 |
> is unique). If this isn't correct, I'd be very happy to switch all |
| 12 |
> the packages that use various forms of the MIT license over to it |
| 13 |
> instead and you can blissfully ignore the next paragraph. However, |
| 14 |
> I'd rather be on the safe/correct side than save a few MB that have to |
| 15 |
> be downloaded once. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> <snip> |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> Joshua Baergen |
| 20 |
I'd still like clarification on this. I fully realize that we've been |
| 21 |
using generalized placeholders for a long time, but that doesn't really |
| 22 |
matter in the end if it's not legal. |
| 23 |
-- |
| 24 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives