Currently ebuilds in java-virtuals are either using as-is or GPL-2 for the virtuals "package.env". We should use the same license for all and neither of the current seems a particularly good choice. 13:02:23 <ulm> sera: if they write files to disk then they need a license 13:03:27 <ulm> and java-virtuals-2.eclass exports src_install 13:05:14 <sera> ulm: right, so the question now is which to use. 13:09:39 <ulm> sera: aren't the files trivial? 13:10:38 <sera> ulm: they are 13:10:49 <sera> just some variables 13:11:55 <ulm> public-domain then 13:12:34 <ulm> or MIT, BSD-2, WTFPL-2, No-Problem-Bugroff if a license is really needed 13:14:21 <sera> do WTFPL-2, No-Problem-Bugroff exist? :) 13:15:29 <ulm> hm, looks like No-Problem-Bugroff was removed :( 13:15:38 <ulm> but WTFPL-2 is in licenses/ 13:15:56 <ulm> very simple license :) 13:16:26 <sera> great read :) 13:17:16 <sera> ulm: thanks Are there any preferences for either of public-domain, MIT, BSD-2 or WTFPL-2? An example of what gets installed per virtual: $ cat /usr/share/java-config-2/virtuals/servlet-api-3.0 PROVIDERS="tomcat-servlet-api-3.0 resin-servlet-api-3.0" MULTI_PROVIDER="FALSE"
With "as-is" no longer being in the @FREE license group, see bug 437162, there is now an immediate need to change many. Going with public-license as suggested by ulm for all java-virtuals.
