| 1 |
On Fri, May 09, 2003 at 01:01:18PM -0700, Robin H.Johnson wrote: |
| 2 |
> [copied to -core because of license stuff, please reply on -dev] |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> I'm putting together an ebuild for libcap (bug #2333), and I ran into |
| 5 |
> something in the tree. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> The license included with it wasn't one I had seen myself before so I |
| 8 |
> was checking if it was in $PORTAGE/licenses. I see that all of libcap, |
| 9 |
> PAM and PWDB have identical licenses (except for the same of the |
| 10 |
> package). |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> The license in question seems to a dual BSD/GPL license. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> Instead of creating a new libcap license file, I think we should |
| 15 |
> abstract the package name in PAM/PWDB and point all 3 items to this. |
| 16 |
> Possible name is $PORTAGE/licenses/BSD_GPL |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> Comments/For/Against/Flames? |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Dual licenses are usually done like: |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
LICENSE="BSD GPL-2" |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Any reason that wouldn't apply here? |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
Jon Portnoy |
| 29 |
avenj/irc.freenode.net |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives