[gentoo-dev] app-crypt/kstart License questionable

[gentoo-dev] app-crypt/kstart License questionable

[Michael Hammer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1192 bytes --]

Hi!

I'd like to add kstart to the tree and have a question to the license
of the package. It's some kind of combination of the MIT License with
a few minor licenses. Should I add the whole license file to the tree?
Here is the link:

http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/software/kstart/license.html

There is a very similar situation on the sys-auth/pam_krb5 package
which is also from Russ Allbery. There we provide not the full license
needed for the package.

g, mueli

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               ______
Michael Hammer                                                /      |
GPG-Key-ID: 0x1BA5F0DE                                        \______|
GPG-Fingerprint:                                                 ||
  8704 11D1 048A 2F24 89D0  6B9E 3EC4 6EDF 1BA5 F0DE             ||
phone: +43 (0) 650 86 33 55 8                                    ||
Graz - AUSTRIA                                                   ||
http://www.michael-hammer.at/           michael@derhammer.net    ~~
----------------------------------------------------------------------


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] app-crypt/kstart License questionable

[Donnie Berkholz]

On 21:10 Fri 09 May     , Michael Hammer wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> I'd like to add kstart to the tree and have a question to the license
> of the package. It's some kind of combination of the MIT License with
> a few minor licenses. Should I add the whole license file to the tree?
> Here is the link:
> 
> http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/software/kstart/license.html
> 
> There is a very similar situation on the sys-auth/pam_krb5 package
> which is also from Russ Allbery. There we provide not the full license
> needed for the package.

It's nicest if you can map each license back to an individual one in the 
tree. People generally ignore the build system when doing that. When 
doing the licensing thing, the way things seem to go in Gentoo is to get 
the actual license language mapped to a license file but ignore any 
differences in copyright ownership (e.g., Stanford vs X Consortium).

Thanks,
Donnie
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list