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 1MCUbW-000178-2J for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 05 Jun 2009 08:16:46 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 77DB5E005E; Fri, 5 Jun 2009 08:16:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ext.lri.fr (ext.lri.fr [129.175.15.4]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5268BE005E for ; Fri, 5 Jun 2009 08:16:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ext.lri.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4827BA4473 for ; Fri, 5 Jun 2009 10:16:42 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at lri.fr Received: from ext.lri.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (ext.lri.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aa7N6UmD9bDj for ; Fri, 5 Jun 2009 10:16:42 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp.lri.fr (vhost3-23 [129.175.3.23]) by ext.lri.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31F62A4469 for ; Fri, 5 Jun 2009 10:16:42 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [129.175.11.52] (lri11-52 [129.175.11.52]) by smtp.lri.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 227DDE05B1 for ; Fri, 5 Jun 2009 10:16:42 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <4A28D49B.7040209@gentoo.org> Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 10:17:31 +0200 From: =?UTF-8?B?UsOpbWkgQ2FyZG9uYQ==?= User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (X11/20090505) 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 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Council Reminder for June 11 References: <1244154362.11496.172.camel@localhost> <8b4c83ad0906050035o31a71c7fme9b46ebea59faef3@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <8b4c83ad0906050035o31a71c7fme9b46ebea59faef3@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: ccd95c4e-1d40-42cb-a1ea-eb3770057b89 X-Archives-Hash: 471c2661f08121b4af0fc31dde8222e6 Nirbheek Chauhan a =C3=A9crit : > The x11 team[1] came to the conclusion that following RedHat's lead > and just using MIT as license for Xorg packages should suffice since > they are quite careful about these things. This should definitely be > better than the current practice anyway. That's indeed my plan. All the X packages I've checked in Fedora's cvs=20 have MIT as the license. I think this will definitely help clean up=20 gentoo-x86/license. As long as we all agree that LICENSE is only informational (ie, we try=20 to do our best but comes with no guarantee). For the record, even simple=20 X packages such as libs and/or protos may have 2 or more=20 similar-but-not-identical license headers in various files, dozens of=20 copyright holders. So anyone doing _serious_ license work on X packages shouldn't even rely=20 on what we currently provide as those licenses may not reflect the=20 actual license of all files in our packages. Bottom line, everyone considers them to be MIT/X11 which seems to be=20 fairly accurate. My plan is to go over each package as time permits, check the license=20 and then make the x-modular eclass set the default license to MIT=20 instead of ${PN}. I could definitely use a hand to check all those packages :) Cheers, R=C3=A9mi