| 1 |
On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 3:56 AM, Tiziano Müller<dev-zero@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> Default ACCEPT_LICENSE |
| 3 |
> ---------------------- |
| 4 |
> Goal: A possible default value for ACCEPT_LICENSE has been proposed. Decide |
| 5 |
> whether that's ok. What happens to the X11 license files (one for each app)? |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
The x11 team[1] came to the conclusion that following RedHat's lead |
| 9 |
and just using MIT as license for Xorg packages should suffice since |
| 10 |
they are quite careful about these things. This should definitely be |
| 11 |
better than the current practice anyway. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Are there any other packages or sets of packages with horrible LICENSE |
| 14 |
behaviour similar to this? |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
1. Remi, could you reply here and confirm for record purposes? |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
-- |
| 20 |
~Nirbheek Chauhan |
Archives