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 |