| 1 |
>>>>> On Sat, 16 Feb 2013, Mike Gilbert wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> I'm sure I'm not the only one who really doesn't care about having |
| 4 |
> ACCEPT_LICENSE work properly for a package full of binary blobs. It |
| 5 |
> seems like a rather insignificant reason to split the package up. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
Nobody has suggested to split it up. But until this is sorted out, |
| 8 |
we should maybe keep the existing individual packages, unless there's |
| 9 |
a good reason to remove them. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
> If some of the licenses involved are particularly offensive to a |
| 12 |
> large number of people, then it might be worth while to split those |
| 13 |
> particular files out. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Look into the WHENCE file and be horrified. Taking just the first ten |
| 16 |
items (of a total 114): |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Unknown license (3 times) |
| 19 |
GPL, but without source (3 times) |
| 20 |
"All rights reserved" |
| 21 |
BSD, without source |
| 22 |
Right for redistribution not granted |
| 23 |
"Permission is hereby granted for the distribution [...] as part of |
| 24 |
a Linux or other Open Source operating system kernel" |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
With one exception, we are not even allowed to redistribute these. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Ulrich |
Archives