On Thursday 12 July 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 16:10:48 -0400 > > Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Thursday 12 July 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > > Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Which feelings are clearly wrong, for anyone with any degree of > > > > > familiarity with ebuilds. > > > > > > > > perhaps, but in the larger scheme of things, irrelevant > > > > > > Unless there are third party repositories shipping their own > > > from-scratch ebuilds... > > > > why would Gentoo care two licks about ebuilds in third party > > repositories ... this is just pointless pondering > > Because if they're derived works from skel.ebuild as wolf31o2 is > claiming, then there are both copyright and licence requirements imposed > upon them. If this is the case, there are people out there in > violation, some of whom would likely take extremely strong issue with > the "derived works" argument...
blah blah blah it's a stupid argument third parties are free to license however they like. anything in the Gentoo portage tree has to have a header the same as skel.ebuild. -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
