| 1 |
On 01/01/2014 09:10 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 8:51 PM, Michael Orlitzky <mjo@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> In essence, I don't want to *use* code that isn't @FREE. This includes |
| 4 |
>> the installed files, of course, but also the build system (that I use |
| 5 |
>> temporarily). We could generalize this to "any file accessed during |
| 6 |
>> emerge" to be on the safe side. That ensures that if I need to modify |
| 7 |
>> (and redistribute) any part of the software that I use, I can. |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
>> What use case is there for having the LICENSE apply to anything else? |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> If you want to redistribute the source tarball (such as on an internal |
| 12 |
> mirror) then you might care what license pertains to the tarball. |
| 13 |
> RESTRICT=mirror only prevents mirrors using the standard Gentoo |
| 14 |
> software from distributing a file. If you just have a server fetch |
| 15 |
> sources and share distfiles via NFS/rsync/etc then you're sharing |
| 16 |
> everything. I actually use this approach for my VMs/etc to cut down |
| 17 |
> on network traffic and mirror load (my main Gentoo box is listed as |
| 18 |
> the first mirror, and also is used for SYNC). |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Is there a real example where the license matters for something |
| 22 |
redistributed to yourself? |
Archives