On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 05:15:06PM -0500, Richard Freeman wrote: > On 12/28/2009 01:56 PM, Robin H. Johnson wrote: > >Actually, this is a case where the license on the ebuild is wrong, not > >the license group. The kernel ebuilds should have GPL-2 and something > >else, and by definition should not pass @FSF-APPROVED alone. > Is this appropriate? The kernel sources indicate that they are > licensed under GPLv2, and they make no mention of other licenses for > any component of the sources. You're wrong there. The kernel does contain additional licenses, and EXPLICITLY mentions them. Go and read 'firmware/WHENCE'.
The licenses listed therein range from use-permitted only no-modification, to GPL-compliant and BSD-like. > For that matter, for all we know kdelibs contains 10 lines of code > from Jack Smith, who didn't agree to the LGPL and those 10 lines are > under the Jack Smith Distribution License. However, it would be > best if Jack Smith were to take this up with the KDE team and not > with every distro that uses KDE. I'm not concerned with a case such as the above. "Jack Smith" needs to take it up with KDE. > If Gentoo starts second-guessing the licenses on packages, do we > then become liable if we fail to do this for a package? There is no second-guessing. What I am concerned with is that Gentoo's statement of licensing does not accurately reflect what licenses are on the package. -- Robin Hugh Johnson Gentoo Linux: Developer, Trustee & Infrastructure Lead E-Mail : robb...@gentoo.org GnuPG FP : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85
