I've been contacted by upstream (Xiph) regarding the "Xiph BSD license", which is in reality just a cosmetic variation of the "BSD" license. Here's my final email to upstream regarding the matter: "Since the "Xiph BSD" license as we have it[1] is simply filling in the placeholders on the BSD license[2], I'm going to change all the ebuilds using "xiph" to "BSD", as was originally suggested. We're not going to keep different BSD-variant licenses when the only thing that is different is the copyright owner. If Xiph does have a derivative license that varies in more than cosmetics, then yes, we'll put that in the tree and change the licenses. Steve 1. http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo-x86/licenses/xiph?rev=1.1&view=markup 2. http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo-x86/licenses/BSD?rev=1.4&view=markup" Affected ebuilds that need to be converted from 'xiph' to 'BSD': app-emulation/emul-linux-x86-medialibs-10.2 media-libs/libtheora-1.0_alpha6-r1 media-libs/libtheora-1.0_alpha7 media-sound/positron-1.1
(In reply to comment #0) > Affected ebuilds that need to be converted from 'xiph' to 'BSD': > > app-emulation/emul-linux-x86-medialibs-10.2 > media-libs/libtheora-1.0_alpha6-r1 > media-libs/libtheora-1.0_alpha7 > media-sound/positron-1.1 Fixed in CVS
