| 1 |
On 12/28/2009 01:56 PM, Robin H. Johnson wrote: |
| 2 |
> Actually, this is a case where the license on the ebuild is wrong, not |
| 3 |
> the license group. The kernel ebuilds should have GPL-2 and something |
| 4 |
> else, and by definition should not pass @FSF-APPROVED alone. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
Is this appropriate? The kernel sources indicate that they are licensed |
| 7 |
under GPLv2, and they make no mention of other licenses for any |
| 8 |
component of the sources. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Perhaps Linus/etc are wrong about this - but shouldn't that be something |
| 11 |
that people take up with them, unless Gentoo gets a letter from some |
| 12 |
lawyers claiming that we're infringing? |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
For that matter, for all we know kdelibs contains 10 lines of code from |
| 15 |
Jack Smith, who didn't agree to the LGPL and those 10 lines are under |
| 16 |
the Jack Smith Distribution License. However, it would be best if Jack |
| 17 |
Smith were to take this up with the KDE team and not with every distro |
| 18 |
that uses KDE. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
If Gentoo starts second-guessing the licenses on packages, do we then |
| 21 |
become liable if we fail to do this for a package? |
Archives