On 03/30/12 16:19, Alec Warner wrote:
> I doubt you can get the content "re-licensed" under a different
> license. You may be able to convince folks to add an additional
> license (|| (GPL-2 BSD-2)). That way Gentoo keeps its GPL-2 and
> freebsd can have the code as BSD-2.
Dual-licensing is fine b
On 03/30/2012 15:36, Richard Yao wrote:
> It has nothing to do with the license of the package. That is completely
> separate. This has to do with the license of the ebuild itself.
>
> FreeBSD Ports inspired Daniel Robbins to create Portage. The issue that
> is our ability to share FreeBSD-specif
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 12:36 PM, Richard Yao wrote:
> On 03/30/12 14:47, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> I fail to understand what the license of the ebuild has to do with the
>> license of the package itself.
>
> It has nothing to do with the license of the package. That is completely
> separate. This
On 03/30/12 15:12, Rich Freeman wrote:
> If there are specific pains associated with not being able to submit
> patches upstream or such, please do point them out and I'm sure we'll
> consider what can be done to accommodate this. However, if this
> really is a one-off situation then we're probabl
On 03/30/12 14:47, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> I fail to understand what the license of the ebuild has to do with the
> license of the package itself.
It has nothing to do with the license of the package. That is completely
separate. This has to do with the license of the ebuild itself.
FreeBSD Ports
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> Ebuilds in the Portage tree must be licensed under the GPL. This is
> part of the Gentoo Social Contract [1], so I guess it won't change
> anytime soon.
>
> And IMHO, we would be ill-advised to allow different licenses for
> ebuilds in the t
> On Fri, 30 Mar 2012, Richard Yao wrote:
>> 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
On 03/30/12 14:00, Jon Portnoy wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 01:52:18PM -0400, Richard Yao wrote:
>>
>> 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 probl
On 03/30/12 13:52, Richard Yao wrote:
> 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.
To clarify, I would li
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 01:52:18PM -0400, Richard Yao wrote:
>
> 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 em
On 03/30/12 13:34, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Mar 2012 12:34:26 -0400
> Richard Yao 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 s
On Fri, 30 Mar 2012 12:34:26 -0400
Richard Yao 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
12 matches
Mail list logo
