| 1 |
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> Ebuilds in the Portage tree must be licensed under the GPL. This is |
| 3 |
> part of the Gentoo Social Contract [1], so I guess it won't change |
| 4 |
> anytime soon. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> And IMHO, we would be ill-advised to allow different licenses for |
| 7 |
> ebuilds in the tree, because that would imply that we cannot copy code |
| 8 |
> from one ebuild to another (or from ebuild to eclass) any more. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Speaking as an individual trustee, I tend to agree. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
If there are specific pains associated with not being able to submit |
| 14 |
patches upstream or such, please do point them out and I'm sure we'll |
| 15 |
consider what can be done to accommodate this. However, if this |
| 16 |
really is a one-off situation then we're probably better-off if we |
| 17 |
just ask individual contributors to re-license when needed. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
I'd think the only thing in the portage tree upstream would be |
| 20 |
interested in would be patches (including sed operations). |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Rich |
Archives