On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 9:50 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>
> But Gentoo can't distribute MS Windows to you in the first place. Is
> there a package that Gentoo can distribute to you, but you can't
> redistribute within your organization?
Well, ACCEPT_LICENSE is about more than just whether a packa
On 01/01/2014 09:38 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 9:19 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>>
>> Is there a real example where the license matters for something
>> redistributed to yourself?
>
> Well, "yourself" is a loose term. If I were to redistribute MS
> Windows across 300 PCs fo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/01/2014 09:40 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> On 01/01/2014 09:13 PM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote:
>>
>>> What use case is there for having the LICENSE apply to anything else?
>>
>> Some of us do redistribute the entire source package, so it doe
On 01/01/2014 09:13 PM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote:
>
>> What use case is there for having the LICENSE apply to anything else?
>
> Some of us do redistribute the entire source package, so it does matter.
> If it doesn't matter to you as a user then you can always leave it
> unset and you rem
On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 9:19 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>
> Is there a real example where the license matters for something
> redistributed to yourself?
Well, "yourself" is a loose term. If I were to redistribute MS
Windows across 300 PCs for my employer I suspect some people would
have somethin
On 01/01/2014 09:10 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 8:51 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>> In essence, I don't want to *use* code that isn't @FREE. This includes
>> the installed files, of course, but also the build system (that I use
>> temporarily). We could generalize this to "any
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/01/2014 08:51 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> On 01/01/2014 05:28 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> Hi,
>> According to GLEP 23 [1], the LICENSE variable regulates the software
>> that is installed on a system. There is however some ambiguity in
>> this
On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 8:51 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> In essence, I don't want to *use* code that isn't @FREE. This includes
> the installed files, of course, but also the build system (that I use
> temporarily). We could generalize this to "any file accessed during
> emerge" to be on the safe
On 01/01/2014 05:28 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> Hi,
> According to GLEP 23 [1], the LICENSE variable regulates the software
> that is installed on a system. There is however some ambiguity in
> this: should it cover the actual files installed on the system, or
> everything that is included in the p
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/01/2014 05:28 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> Hi, According to GLEP 23 [1], the LICENSE variable regulates the
> software that is installed on a system. There is however some
> ambiguity in this: should it cover the actual files installed on
> the sy
Hi,
According to GLEP 23 [1], the LICENSE variable regulates the software
that is installed on a system. There is however some ambiguity in
this: should it cover the actual files installed on the system, or
everything that is included in the package's tarball? This question
was asked several times
11 matches
Mail list logo
