On 16 Feb 2015 12:53, Pacho Ramos wrote: > El lun, 16-02-2015 a las 12:46 +0100, Pacho Ramos escribió: > > El lun, 16-02-2015 a las 06:39 -0500, Mike Frysinger escribió: > > [...] > > > > Anyway, wouldn't have been much more useful for all to spend the effort > > used in remove the package on simply fixing the header? :/ > > Ah, ok, I guess it's because of the "All rights reserved" > http://sources.gentoo.org/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/gentoo-x86/dev-libs/libusbhp/libusbhp-1.0.2.ebuild?revision=1.1 > > In that case I agree removing the ebuild was the safest approach (even > if a mail or a bug would have being nice to notify the committed about > that error)
except for two things: * that phrase is meaningless (legally speaking) and has been for a century [1] * the header explicitly stated GPL-2 license -mike [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_rights_reserved
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
