From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 378 invoked by uid 1002); 9 May 2003 20:21:10 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gentoo-dev-help@gentoo.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Received: (qmail 17318 invoked from network); 9 May 2003 20:21:09 -0000 Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 16:21:06 -0400 From: Jon Portnoy To: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Message-ID: <20030509202106.GA23818@cerberus.oppresses.us> References: <20030509200118.GA27773@cherenkov.orbis-terrarum.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030509200118.GA27773@cherenkov.orbis-terrarum.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] Ebuild license question X-Archives-Salt: 2cd3b88f-4159-4811-9a93-63bcb9116d7a X-Archives-Hash: fa46c8934e4132fda7a11415b24f6976 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