| 1 |
On Thu, 2019-09-12 at 09:42 -0700, Alec Warner wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 9:14 AM Michael Orlitzky <mjo@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> > On 9/12/19 11:46 AM, William Hubbs wrote: |
| 5 |
> > > In other words, the way I see this is a tree-wide issue. LICENSE= for |
| 6 |
> > > any package should list every license for every package it links to or |
| 7 |
> > > uses. |
| 8 |
> > > |
| 9 |
> > There is no issue tree-wide, because no one else is trying to cut |
| 10 |
> > corners and bundle every dependency of every package. All of our |
| 11 |
> > dependencies are in separate packages, with separate LICENSE variables. |
| 12 |
> > So when you install one package, the LICENSE variables of all its |
| 13 |
> > dependencies pulled in by the package manager are indeed taken into |
| 14 |
> > account. That's the whole point of a package manager -- it can do these |
| 15 |
> > things for you if the developers do their jobs and package software |
| 16 |
> > correctly. |
| 17 |
> > |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> I'm not really keen on this language ("cutting corners"). Newer languages |
| 20 |
> are not C, they don't act like C, build like C or do many other things like |
| 21 |
> C[0]. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
This doesn't mean they do anything better. It just means they are |
| 24 |
easier for 'write, deploy, sell, forget' model. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
Best regards, |
| 28 |
Michał Górny |
Archives