| 1 |
On Monday 26 December 2005 14:57, Drake Wyrm wrote: |
| 2 |
> You're going to be hard-pressed to get any kind of consensus on this |
| 3 |
> issue. Many dev seems to feel that the license belongs there. In some |
| 4 |
> cases the COPYING, LICENSE, and/or INSTALL files contain, not boilerplate |
| 5 |
> drivel, but actually unique, useful information. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
Removing these files and relying on LICENSE=foo in the ebuild could be seen as |
| 8 |
a copyright violation. There are lots of samples in /usr/src/licenses that |
| 9 |
aren't generic, but include a copyright notice naming the authors of a |
| 10 |
particular piece of software, but it doesn't match with all packages under |
| 11 |
this license of course. Take ZLIB as example. Since I'm not a lawyer I might |
| 12 |
be wrong, but me thinks it would make sense to ask one. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Carsten |
Archives