On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 00:41:06 -0700 Joshua Baergen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | The reasons that this system was chosen were correctness and | maintainability. Many of these essentially use the good old MIT | license with various companies' and/or individuals' copyrights at the | top, as you have stated. However, the MIT license does refer to the | copyrights within the license script itself, and many of the licenses | have been slightly altered to include a company's name directly. I'm | no lawyer, but to me this means that the license does indeed include | the copyright.
So you propose we go through and change every package in the tree that uses BSD or MIT (or GPL with the copyright disclaimer)? | Now, that splinters the licenses a good amount already, and thus | maintenance becomes an issue. If one half of the licenses are | unique, and we only keep unique ones, packages start depending on | other licenses in a spaghetti-like fashion. We can't just go ahead | and change any given license since it will mess up other packages | dependent on that license. Like good programming practice, I would | argue that less is not necessarily better. Were that the case, we'd do as Debian do and distribute a licence with every single package. Every other package maintainer manages to get it right. That it's a bit more work to do things properly is no excuse. -- Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (King of all Londinium) Mail : ciaranm at gentoo.org Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
