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 |