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