| 1 |
On 21:10 Fri 09 May , Michael Hammer wrote: |
| 2 |
> Hi! |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> I'd like to add kstart to the tree and have a question to the license |
| 5 |
> of the package. It's some kind of combination of the MIT License with |
| 6 |
> a few minor licenses. Should I add the whole license file to the tree? |
| 7 |
> Here is the link: |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/software/kstart/license.html |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> There is a very similar situation on the sys-auth/pam_krb5 package |
| 12 |
> which is also from Russ Allbery. There we provide not the full license |
| 13 |
> needed for the package. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
It's nicest if you can map each license back to an individual one in the |
| 16 |
tree. People generally ignore the build system when doing that. When |
| 17 |
doing the licensing thing, the way things seem to go in Gentoo is to get |
| 18 |
the actual license language mapped to a license file but ignore any |
| 19 |
differences in copyright ownership (e.g., Stanford vs X Consortium). |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Thanks, |
| 22 |
Donnie |
| 23 |
-- |
| 24 |
gentoo-dev@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives