| 1 |
On Thursday 12 July 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 16:10:48 -0400 |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > On Thursday 12 July 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 6 |
> > > Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o> wrote: |
| 7 |
> > > > > Which feelings are clearly wrong, for anyone with any degree of |
| 8 |
> > > > > familiarity with ebuilds. |
| 9 |
> > > > |
| 10 |
> > > > perhaps, but in the larger scheme of things, irrelevant |
| 11 |
> > > |
| 12 |
> > > Unless there are third party repositories shipping their own |
| 13 |
> > > from-scratch ebuilds... |
| 14 |
> > |
| 15 |
> > why would Gentoo care two licks about ebuilds in third party |
| 16 |
> > repositories ... this is just pointless pondering |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> Because if they're derived works from skel.ebuild as wolf31o2 is |
| 19 |
> claiming, then there are both copyright and licence requirements imposed |
| 20 |
> upon them. If this is the case, there are people out there in |
| 21 |
> violation, some of whom would likely take extremely strong issue with |
| 22 |
> the "derived works" argument... |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
blah blah blah it's a stupid argument |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
third parties are free to license however they like. anything in the Gentoo |
| 27 |
portage tree has to have a header the same as skel.ebuild. |
| 28 |
-mike |
Archives