On 03/30/12 13:34, Alexis Ballier wrote: > On Fri, 30 Mar 2012 12:34:26 -0400 > Richard Yao <r...@cs.stonybrook.edu> wrote: > >> I wrote sys-freebsd/virtio-kmod (bug 410199) while studying >> Gentoo/FreeBSD as part of an attempt to port gptzfsloader to Gentoo >> Linux. naota wrote an improvement that would be useful to send >> upstream. However, the GPL-2 license poses a problem according to >> conversations that I had in #gentoo-dev. >> > > if he wrote the improvement, he can send it upstream under whatever > license he wants; generally, it is implicit that a patch follows the > same license as the code it applies to, esp. when the author himself > agrees to share it with upstream.
The improvement is to the ebuild itself. It is a variable containing a list of directories upon which the module's build system depends. I spoke to naota and he doesn't have any problem sending this upstream, so I sent an email to the FreeBSD maintainer offering him the improvement. >> While I have asked naota for permission to upstream the line he wrote, >> this poses a more general issue for collaboration, especially if I >> port more kernel modules from FreeBSD Ports. >> >> Would it be possible to relicense sys-freebsd/* under terms of the >> BSD-2 license? >> > > what do you mean by 'relicense' ? for ebuilds, you'll have to ask > permission to all contributors to this area, and, afaik, the foundation > owns copyrights so it has a word to say too. > if you mean the 'LICENSE' field of ebuilds, then this is not the right > place to ask. > > A. > I am referring to the ebuilds themselves. Right now, all ebuilds in the tree are GPL-2 licensed. This makes contributing FreeBSD-specific improvements to FreeBSD Ports upstream difficult. I want sys-freebsd/virtio-kmod to be BSD-2 licensed, but I do not expect the version that enters the portage tree to be BSD-2 licensed unless people clarify that it is okay to license ebuilds under something other than the GPL-2.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
