From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1GJX8f-0007e0-AA for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 02 Sep 2006 15:10:29 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.8/8.13.6) with SMTP id k82F9cKS015373; Sat, 2 Sep 2006 15:09:38 GMT Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.8/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k82F7WKO015947 for ; Sat, 2 Sep 2006 15:07:33 GMT Received: from iglu.bnet.local (d149040.adsl.hansenet.de [80.171.149.40]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21430646F6 for ; Sat, 2 Sep 2006 15:07:32 +0000 (UTC) From: Carsten Lohrke To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] cdrtools license issues Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2006 17:07:06 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.4 References: <200609011444.59711.carlo@gentoo.org> <20060901182608.GB9973@kroah.com> In-Reply-To: <20060901182608.GB9973@kroah.com> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart7151119.yj3tjOYAaW"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200609021707.14077.carlo@gentoo.org> X-Archives-Salt: 8240fed8-c0b2-45aa-b11d-29f2927a938a X-Archives-Hash: 7d92f580b1cb3a1dfae84b10f3dd80a8 --nextPart7151119.yj3tjOYAaW Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Friday 01 September 2006 20:26, Greg KH wrote: > So we are just fine, one of the advantages of being a source-based > distro :) Um, rereading term three of the GPL, you're right of course. The question=20 remains how do we flag this. LICENSE=3D"GPL-2 CDDL-Schily" in case of=20 cdrtools!? Yes, the latter is the license file we have in the tree and=20 looking at it, the only difference to the CDDL is that it includes an=20 additional notice, which sets the court to Berlin, Germany. Also we need to have a file that lists clashing licenses, so Portage (at le= ast=20 in a future, caring about licenses) will trow warnings, when binary package= s=20 get build. I mean we claim to be a meta-distribution, but I don't think=20 projects basing their binary distributions on Gentoo can feel safe a bit wi= th=20 regards to lisensing. We do absolutely nothing to care for that right now. While thinking about it, other issues came to my mind: =2D Ciaran pushed for not installing license/copyright information=20 in /usr/share/doc/${PF}. But a lot of our licenses in /usr/portage/licenses= =20 list specific copyright holders - of a single package, others have a=20 different copyright line of course. Wouldn't this be copyright infringement= ,=20 to distrbute a images based on Gentoo, but do not include the correct=20 licenses!? =2D There is at least one case we can't map right now. Think about the=20 following: An ebuild licensed GPL, depends on another one, licensed CPL. Bo= th=20 licenses are incompatible. It's impossible to distinct (within our=20 LICENSE=3D"foo" stuff), if the CPL licensed tool is only used to generate=20 something at compile time and also used but not linked to at runtime, to th= e=20 case the GPL licensed application links to a library, the CPL licensed ebui= ls=20 provides. Again, binary distributions building on Gentoo are lost. The package I have in mind is media-gfx/graphviz in this case. Carsten --nextPart7151119.yj3tjOYAaW Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5-ecc0.1.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBE+Z4iVwbzmvGLSW8RArzSAJwJhrKAwJ85BNivZXn0y5Y3wCmQ3wCfVpHT BgN5/QYHVz6LWpgeoC1jSqQ= =M+pW -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart7151119.yj3tjOYAaW-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list