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 /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.
Of course, but we are redistributing programs in binary form in exactly the same state as when installing them, via stages and live/packagecds. > If the license should be > installed, shouldn't the upstream make install take care of it then? 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.
pgpdVplq0zAmF.pgp
Description: PGP signature
