Harald van D3k wrote:
> Right, which is why at the same time it would be useful to have an
> option to not install those files. There's no problem with USE
> conditionals in LICENSE; LICENSE="GPL-2 firmware? ( freedist )" or
> expanded further would be fine, and simply nuke those files on install
>
Am Dienstag 05 Januar 2010 schrieb Ulrich Mueller:
> Licenses for Works of Opinion and Judgment (maybe omit this group?):
>
>CCPL-Attribution-NoDerivs-3.0 (there's only 2.5 in ${PORTDIR}/licenses/)
>("GNU Verbatim Copying License" - not yet in ${PORTDIR}/licenses/)
I think they don't be
Am Dienstag 05 Januar 2010 schrieb Diego E. Pettenò:
> # Diego E. Pettenò (05 Jan 2010)
> # on behalf of QA team
> #
> # Fails to build with different configurations (bug #205050,
> # open January 2008, with patch and bug #262243, open
> # March 2009).
> #
> # Removal on 2010-03-06
> app-emulatio
Hi,
Had some more thoughts about that licensing issue and wanted to make some
suggestions.
I think the GPL-compatible set makes barely sense. The problem with it is, as
stated by various people, that we have different GPLs. GPL2 and 3 are
incompatible, so it doesn't mean "GPL-compatible" are a
> On Thu, 7 Jan 2010, Hanno Böck wrote:
>> Licenses for Works of Opinion and Judgment (maybe omit this group?):
>>
>> CCPL-Attribution-NoDerivs-3.0 (there's only 2.5 in ${PORTDIR}/licenses/)
>> ("GNU Verbatim Copying License" - not yet in ${PORTDIR}/licenses/)
> I think they don't belong the
Am Donnerstag 07 Januar 2010 schrieb Ulrich Mueller:
> So the plan is:
> - Add GPL-1 and LGPL-2 to @GPL-COMPATIBLE
> - Add a new group "@FSF-APPROVED-OTHER" containing the following:
> Arphic
> CCPL-Attribution-2.0
> CCPL-Attribution-ShareAlike-2.0
> DSL
> FDL-1.1 FDL-1.2 FDL-1.
On 01/07/2010 01:19 AM, Vincent Launchbury wrote:
All I'm asking for is that users who care about this will be shown an
accurate license,
I think that this really sums this whole thing up. Can you run a
computer with ONLY FOSS on it (firmware to ROMs to hard drive
controlers) - probably not,
> On Thu, 7 Jan 2010, Hanno Böck wrote:
> I think the GPL-compatible set makes barely sense. The problem with
> it is, as stated by various people, that we have different GPLs.
> GPL2 and 3 are incompatible, so it doesn't mean "GPL-compatible" are
> all licenses that can be mixed together. I d
On 01/07/2010 05:46 AM, Hanno Böck wrote:
I think the GPL-compatible set makes barely sense.
++
Difference between OSI and FSF approved: ... I think the definitions
of FSF and OSI are pretty much the same, ... So I'd like it much more
to have one big "This is free and open source software"
Am Donnerstag 07 Januar 2010 schrieb Ulrich Mueller:
> > On Thu, 7 Jan 2010, Hanno Böck wrote:
> >
> > I think the GPL-compatible set makes barely sense. The problem with
> > it is, as stated by various people, that we have different GPLs.
> > GPL2 and 3 are incompatible, so it doesn't mean "GP
2010/1/2 Pacho Ramos :
> [...] I failed to see if, finally, an approval
> from the council is needed for merging [multilib] to portage-2.2 or not
The only approval that's required to merge anything to an official
portage branch is Zac's (zmedico). He may have to follow some rules
and wait for some
On Thu, Jan 07, 2010 at 01:19:24AM -0500, Vincent Launchbury wrote:
> Greg KH wrote:
> > Also note that the license of the firmware files do not matter to
> > almost everyone using the kernel, as almost no one uses those files
> > anymore, the ones in the linux-firmware package should be used
> > i
12 matches
Mail list logo
