| 1 |
Carsten Lohrke wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Monday 26 December 2005 14:57, Drake Wyrm wrote: |
| 3 |
>> You're going to be hard-pressed to get any kind of consensus on this |
| 4 |
>> issue. Many dev seems to feel that the license belongs there. In some |
| 5 |
>> cases the COPYING, LICENSE, and/or INSTALL files contain, not boilerplate |
| 6 |
>> drivel, but actually unique, useful information. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
I found that as well, and made sure to only bug people about generic files. In |
| 9 |
most of those cases COPYING/LICENSE is generic while INSTALL was custom. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
> Removing these files and relying on LICENSE=foo in the ebuild could be seen as |
| 12 |
> a copyright violation. There are lots of samples in /usr/src/licenses that |
| 13 |
> aren't generic, but include a copyright notice naming the authors of a |
| 14 |
> particular piece of software, but it doesn't match with all packages under |
| 15 |
> this license of course. Take ZLIB as example. Since I'm not a lawyer I might |
| 16 |
> be wrong, but me thinks it would make sense to ask one. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
AFAIK most licenses need to be included with the distribution of the source, not |
| 19 |
installed on the system after compilation. But I could be wrong too. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
--de. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
-- |
| 24 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives