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 1MjVUD-00064j-H9 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 04 Sep 2009 09:53:43 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 42B21E0959; Fri, 4 Sep 2009 15:02:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp2-g21.free.fr (smtp2-g21.free.fr [212.27.42.2]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E391E0959 for ; Fri, 4 Sep 2009 15:02:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp2-g21.free.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp2-g21.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98AAB4B010F for ; Fri, 4 Sep 2009 17:02:07 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.0.13] (bne75-10-88-178-16-229.fbx.proxad.net [88.178.16.229]) by smtp2-g21.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF0AB4B00C4 for ; Fri, 4 Sep 2009 17:02:04 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <4AA12BD5.8060108@gentoo.org> Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2009 17:01:41 +0200 From: =?UTF-8?B?UsOpbWkgQ2FyZG9uYQ==?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; fr; rv:1.9.1.1) Gecko/20090715 Thunderbird/3.0b3 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] Re: [RFC] Add operator + for licenses (EAPI-4 ?) References: <4A9C4AD6.9080505@gentoo.org> <4A9C853D.8050003@hartwork.org> <4AA030C0.5010103@gentoo.org> <4AA031DE.5050702@gentoo.org> <4AA034C6.1080908@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <4AA034C6.1080908@gentoo.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: bd4e4abc-98cd-4967-9e8f-30af59a776a0 X-Archives-Hash: ccd5b67fb5ca7c131d2997c7dd1b865e Le 03/09/2009 23:27, Mounir Lamouri a =C3=A9crit : > But the content of the license is the same. That only means you can use > a newer one. > I mean we do not need a new license file for that. It's up to upstream > to write somewhere if it's GPL-2 or GPL-2+, am I right ? Yes, that's for upstream to figure out. For instance, the kernel is=20 GPL-2 only while some other pacakges are 2+. I don't want to sound like an ass, but that's why I think we shouldn't=20 bother too much with LICENSE and all that stuff. We're not _lawyers_. None of us can guarantee that : 1) the LICENSE field in our ebuilds are correctly set according to what=20 upstream says. 2) that the actual code of the package is indeed under that license and=20 not tainted by some other code. For instance, I'm still working on migrating all the X11 packages to the=20 "MIT" license (mainly for cleaning purposes), but in fact, each and=20 every package should have its own license file (like today) because the=20 MIT license requires that we acknowledge all major contributions to the=20 code. Therefore, using a template like ${PORTAGE}/licences/MIT does is=20 probably not a good idea from a legal point of view. And the X code being over 15 years old, only God knows who we should be=20 thanking for this million lines of code. While you're idea is very nice on paper, actually doing it requires much=20 _much_ more work than just adding operators and sets to portage. R=C3=A9mi