[gentoo-dev] Ebuild license question

[gentoo-dev] Ebuild license question

[Robin H.Johnson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 891 bytes --]

[copied to -core because of license stuff, please reply on -dev]

I'm putting together an ebuild for libcap (bug #2333), and I ran into
something in the tree.

The license included with it wasn't one I had seen myself before so I
was checking if it was in $PORTAGE/licenses. I see that all of libcap,
PAM and PWDB have identical licenses (except for the same of the
package). 

The license in question seems to a dual BSD/GPL license.

Instead of creating a new libcap license file, I think we should
abstract the package name in PAM/PWDB and point all 3 items to this.
Possible name is $PORTAGE/licenses/BSD_GPL 

Comments/For/Against/Flames?

-- 
Robin Hugh Johnson
E-Mail     : robbat2@orbis-terrarum.net
Home Page  : http://www.orbis-terrarum.net/?l=people.robbat2
ICQ#       : 30269588 or 41961639
GnuPG FP   : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED  F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 232 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] Ebuild license question

[Jon Portnoy]

On Fri, May 09, 2003 at 01:01:18PM -0700, Robin H.Johnson wrote:
> [copied to -core because of license stuff, please reply on -dev]
> 
> I'm putting together an ebuild for libcap (bug #2333), and I ran into
> something in the tree.
> 
> The license included with it wasn't one I had seen myself before so I
> was checking if it was in $PORTAGE/licenses. I see that all of libcap,
> PAM and PWDB have identical licenses (except for the same of the
> package). 
> 
> The license in question seems to a dual BSD/GPL license.
> 
> Instead of creating a new libcap license file, I think we should
> abstract the package name in PAM/PWDB and point all 3 items to this.
> Possible name is $PORTAGE/licenses/BSD_GPL 
> 
> Comments/For/Against/Flames?
> 

Dual licenses are usually done like:

LICENSE="BSD GPL-2"

Any reason that wouldn't apply here?

-- 
Jon Portnoy
avenj/irc.freenode.net

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] Ebuild license question

[Robin H.Johnson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 899 bytes --]

On Fri, May 09, 2003 at 04:21:06PM -0400, Jon Portnoy wrote:
> > Instead of creating a new libcap license file, I think we should
> > abstract the package name in PAM/PWDB and point all 3 items to this.
> > Possible name is $PORTAGE/licenses/BSD_GPL 
> Dual licenses are usually done like:
> 
> LICENSE="BSD GPL-2"
> 
> Any reason that wouldn't apply here?
I asked because PAM and PWDB seem to have their own license files rather
than that common dual license solution. If you look at their license
files, there is a single additional clause in addition to the BSD/GPL-2
licenses to make them compatible together (otherwise according to FSF
they aren't).

-- 
Robin Hugh Johnson
E-Mail     : robbat2@orbis-terrarum.net
Home Page  : http://www.orbis-terrarum.net/?l=people.robbat2
ICQ#       : 30269588 or 41961639
GnuPG FP   : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED  F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 232 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] Ebuild license question

[Luke-Jr]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I noticed this a while ago. See bug 18951.
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18951

On Friday 09 May 2003 08:01 pm, Robin H.Johnson wrote:
> [copied to -core because of license stuff, please reply on -dev]
>
> I'm putting together an ebuild for libcap (bug #2333), and I ran into
> something in the tree.
>
> The license included with it wasn't one I had seen myself before so I
> was checking if it was in $PORTAGE/licenses. I see that all of libcap,
> PAM and PWDB have identical licenses (except for the same of the
> package).
>
> The license in question seems to a dual BSD/GPL license.
>
> Instead of creating a new libcap license file, I think we should
> abstract the package name in PAM/PWDB and point all 3 items to this.
> Possible name is $PORTAGE/licenses/BSD_GPL
>
> Comments/For/Against/Flames?

- -- 
Luke-Jr
Newbie Application Developer, Gentoo Linux
http://www.gentoo.org/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE+vFW/Zl/BHdU+lYMRArR/AJ4puuS0DUl0X/s1pYp1eQlCIfJgtwCcCWsb
deqFAwsKvniun4yskdkKz7s=
=nlwF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list