On Tue, Dec 27, 2005 at 03:57:55PM +0100, Henrik Brix Andersen wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 27, 2005 at 12:20:39PM +0100, Harald van Dijk wrote:
> > iputils doesn't do a make install, and if it did, it would still be
> > reasonable if that didn't copy the license, since the users who run that
> > themselves
On Tuesday 27 December 2005 08:08, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> anyone who installs a program in portage already has a copy of the license
> on their system ... $PORTDIR/licenses/
My point was that it is often not the license of the copyright holder, because
the copyright notice included in many licen
On Tue, Dec 27, 2005 at 12:20:39PM +0100, Harald van Dijk wrote:
> iputils doesn't do a make install, and if it did, it would still be
> reasonable if that didn't copy the license, since the users who run that
> themselves don't need it.
I don't really see the big difference (regarding this issue)
On Tue, Dec 27, 2005 at 12:32:25PM +0200, Petteri Räty wrote:
> Harald van Dijk wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 27, 2005 at 01:01:10AM -0600, R Hill wrote:
> >
> >>>Removing these files and relying on LICENSE=foo in the ebuild could be
> >>>seen as
> >>>a copyright violation. There are lots of samples in
Harald van Dijk wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 27, 2005 at 01:01:10AM -0600, R Hill wrote:
>
>>>Removing these files and relying on LICENSE=foo in the ebuild could be seen
>>>as
>>>a copyright violation. There are lots of samples in /usr/src/licenses that
>>>aren't generic, but include a copyright notice
On Tue, Dec 27, 2005 at 01:01:10AM -0600, R Hill wrote:
> > Removing these files and relying on LICENSE=foo in the ebuild could be seen
> > as
> > a copyright violation. There are lots of samples in /usr/src/licenses that
> > aren't generic, but include a copyright notice naming the authors of a
On Tuesday 27 December 2005 02:23, Brian Harring wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 27, 2005 at 02:08:25AM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Tuesday 27 December 2005 02:01, R Hill wrote:
> > > AFAIK most licenses need to be included with the distribution of the
> > > source, not installed on the system after c
On Tue, Dec 27, 2005 at 02:08:25AM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Tuesday 27 December 2005 02:01, R Hill wrote:
> > AFAIK most licenses need to be included with the distribution of the
> > source, not installed on the system after compilation. But I could be
> > wrong too.
>
> anyone who insta
On Tuesday 27 December 2005 02:01, R Hill wrote:
> AFAIK most licenses need to be included with the distribution of the
> source, not installed on the system after compilation. But I could be
> wrong too.
anyone who installs a program in portage already has a copy of the license on
their system
Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> On Monday 26 December 2005 14:57, Drake Wyrm wrote:
>> You're going to be hard-pressed to get any kind of consensus on this
>> issue. Many dev seems to feel that the license belongs there. In some
>> cases the COPYING, LICENSE, and/or INSTALL files contain, not boilerplate
>
10 matches
Mail list logo
