| 1 |
>>>>> On Tue, 25 Oct 2016, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> If they were under a non-compatible license like the CDDL then it |
| 4 |
> would depend on whether the authors have the right to dual-license |
| 5 |
> it under the GPL, or whether Gentoo is willing to accept |
| 6 |
> CDDL-licensed ebuilds into the repository. Part of the draft policy |
| 7 |
> is that every Gentoo project/repository have a list of accepted |
| 8 |
> licenses. Off the top of my head I can't think of any issues with |
| 9 |
> allowing incompatible but similar copyleft licenses into the main |
| 10 |
> tree. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Having different licenses for ebuilds in the main tree would be a |
| 13 |
nightmare, IMHO. It would make exchange of code between different |
| 14 |
ebuilds much harder, if not impossible. Think of global issues like |
| 15 |
the multilib conversion where similar code is used in many places. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Also, calling eclass functions could be considered linking. It is not |
| 18 |
entirely clear to me if e.g. a binpkg built with a CDDL licensed |
| 19 |
ebuild calling GPL licensed eclasses would be distributable at all. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
So can we be strict there, please? Contributed ebuilds should have our |
| 22 |
standard copyright header, or they will be rejected. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Ulrich |
Archives