| 1 |
On 22 Mar 2015 09:21, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
| 2 |
> >>>>> On Sun, 22 Mar 2015, Jeroen Roovers wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Better yet, you can claim copyright on a "compilation" which is |
| 4 |
> > probably what is effectively being done here. This is how people get |
| 5 |
> > away with defending their copyright on publications of (slightly |
| 6 |
> > modified/ abridged/ annotated, if at all) "compilations" of |
| 7 |
> > centuries old works. Because copyright law. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> It doesn't work like this in our case. The Portage tree is licensed |
| 10 |
> under the GPL-2. If someone takes a subset of ebuilds from it, it will |
| 11 |
> be a "derivative work" and it cannot be distributed under any license |
| 12 |
> other than the GPL-2. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
no, content is licensed, not directories. you can't reasonably claim that all |
| 15 |
the various files/ (like patches we grab from elsewhere) are all under GPL-2- |
| 16 |
only. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> It is even doubtful if any third-party ebuilds added to such a tree |
| 19 |
> could be under a different license. If such ebuilds inherit from a GPL |
| 20 |
> licensed eclass or depend on (or are depended on by) other ebuilds, |
| 21 |
> they cannot "be reasonably considered independent and separate works |
| 22 |
> in themselves". |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
the combined work might be, but that doesn't mean the individual content itself |
| 25 |
can't be different. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-mike</personal opinion> |
Archives