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 naming the authors of a >>>particular piece of software, but it doesn't match with all packages under >>>this license of course. Take ZLIB as example. Since I'm not a lawyer I might >>>be wrong, but me thinks it would make sense to ask one. >> >>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. > > > There are exceptions, a popular one being BSD. > > * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright > * notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the > * documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. > > As a quick example, iputils is BSD-licensed and does not install or > reproduce its license, so does this cause problems for iputils binpkgs?
We are not redistributing anything in binary form when installing programs. This all happens on the users computers. We are distributing upstream source tarballs verbatim of course. If the license should be installed, shouldn't the upstream make install take care of it then? Regards, Petteri
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
