From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MjZ4x-0001FY-Kf for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 04 Sep 2009 13:43:51 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 43936E0904; Fri, 4 Sep 2009 18:52:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com (fg-out-1718.google.com [72.14.220.157]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 035AFE0904 for ; Fri, 4 Sep 2009 18:52:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: by fg-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id d23so1110553fga.10 for ; Fri, 04 Sep 2009 11:52:20 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:from:to:subject:date :user-agent:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:message-id; bh=DQQqeJVt/tQNH7mHhEI/u3jY9zq22ts4+zNtLO1Wuhc=; b=op2z3FYvQUHfD1X3xGy8IGwOhmX8YYoOChHf09PcGpY80qcqmUW/RUs1xWTZNTotxc xal/8J90biZN4J7jNxDYrBp4+e1AoppzvL7NNj+F+t3TB0hj7FQWAnZIAbhL0C9o5IhK xs0ej8H8mVOwAuWbnoFFg9ZpFQ+BOYhy+x3fE= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=from:to:subject:date:user-agent:references:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :message-id; b=j9UZa9ca7vpbcDQbu79leK/B80Z6SMHDM1Ux7sX8r0RddvlvFGBsNBl27o2Zg3miUy xmFXbnnN42lgXDx0PVxokU0Kel32wfGAvD+Zd7e2fFYfG3D6ORaHrJHKBnQ7HZ0WEoWp sdKIUxpa0MiF+uH1BEOZnUAno3qU5nlF1slhE= Received: by 10.86.211.38 with SMTP id j38mr5382132fgg.26.1252090340453; Fri, 04 Sep 2009 11:52:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?192.168.0.4? (5ad0d22a.bb.sky.com [90.208.210.42]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id d4sm2227497fga.23.2009.09.04.11.52.19 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Fri, 04 Sep 2009 11:52:20 -0700 (PDT) From: David Leverton To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Add operator + for licenses (EAPI-4 ?) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 19:52:11 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.10 References: <4A9C4AD6.9080505@gentoo.org> <4AA034C6.1080908@gentoo.org> <4AA12BD5.8060108@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <4AA12BD5.8060108@gentoo.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200909041952.12314.levertond@googlemail.com> X-Archives-Salt: 5e2fa52a-da82-4701-be3b-80ccc1cc2229 X-Archives-Hash: 8edd8180be61c68570ced78d8057cc5c On Friday 04 September 2009 16:01:41 R=C3=A9mi Cardona wrote: > For instance, I'm still working on migrating all the X11 packages to the > "MIT" license (mainly for cleaning purposes), but in fact, each and > every package should have its own license file (like today) because the > MIT license requires that we acknowledge all major contributions to the > code. Therefore, using a template like ${PORTAGE}/licences/MIT does is > probably not a good idea from a legal point of view. Is that really a problem? I admit to not being around for the original des= ign=20 decisions, but I would assume that the purpose of having LICENSE in ebuilds= =20 is to tell users what licence the package is under (whether or not it's=20 accurate is a different matter), and the purpose of having the licences=20 themselves in the tree is so that it's easy for users to look them up and=20 decide whether they want to accept the conditions or not. For that purpose= ,=20 the exact list of credits is irrelevant. Also, I'm not a lawyer, but I wou= ld=20 think that the licence's requirement for credit is satisfied by the credits= =20 being included in the source code - it doesn't require acknowledgement when= =20 merely talking about the software or stating the fact that it's under a=20 particular licence, just when distributing it.