Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Matthew Burgess wrote:
Yep, I think #1765 (update LFS license) can be retargetted as it's not a
show-stopper and needs to be done properly so will take time. The
current license has served us well enough so far, I think.
I would really like to get this into 6.2 so the BLFS and LFS books use
the same license. I did submit a patch that fixes the book. The only
thing that takes time is the decision to do it. We've been sitting on
our collective hands on this for over two months. How long does it take
to make the decision?
Well, I've already made the decision. I think it makes sense for the
LFS book to have the same license as the BLFS book. However, I don't
think I have the authority to change the license without the consensus
of the copyright holders, which, despite the copyright notice in the
book, isn't just Gerard. So, we'd have to go back and find all those
that have contributed substantial changes to the book and ask for their
permission to change the license. I don't think this can be done within
the currently planned time-scales of the 6.2 release, but if you want to
prove me wrong on that, feel free :-)
Regards,
Matt.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
