| 1 |
>>>>> On Sun, 23 Sep 2012, hasufell wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
>> If we really decide to move things to a new license file, then I'd |
| 4 |
>> rather avoid the name "as-is" because it is partly the reason for |
| 5 |
>> the confusion. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
> I agree on that. I saw it more than once that people use "as-is" for |
| 8 |
> the license, just because there is an "as is" clause. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Right. Here's a small (but prominent) sample, namely all "as-is" |
| 11 |
packages from the amd64 livecd and stage3: |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
- net-misc/ntp: "as-is" looks fine as main license, although some |
| 14 |
parts of the code are under different licenses like GPL (but I |
| 15 |
haven't checked in detail what gets installed). |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
- sys-apps/hdparm: "as-is" approximates it (but different wording). |
| 18 |
Debian lists this package as "BSD". |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
- dev-util/yacc: "public-domain" according to README. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
- media-libs/libpng: Comes with its own license. Free. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
- media-libs/portaudio: "MIT" |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
- net-misc/openssh: BSD-ish, something like "BSD BSD-2 as-is BEER-WARE |
| 27 |
public-domain" would be close. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
- net-wireless/rfkill: "ISC" |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
- sys-apps/man-pages: Patchwork of files with different free |
| 32 |
licenses. "as-is GPL-2+ BSD MIT LDP-1 public-domain" would cover |
| 33 |
most of it. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
While the above are at least free software (mostly BSD/MIT like), |
| 36 |
I think that as-is is completely wrong for the following: |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
- app-admin/passook: Seems to have no license at all. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
- net-wireless/zd1201-firmware: No license in tarball or on homepage. |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
- net-wireless/prism54-firmware: Ditto, and package is mirror |
| 43 |
restricted. (How can it be on our install media then?) |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
Ulrich |
Archives