I would like to hear your opinion about the change in Mendeleys wording in their license. The original is "Mendeley-EULA", the new can be found as attachment. Following to points need to be solved, 1. Is it still an EULA? 2. Are we now allowed to mirror. 1 -> "We may revise these Terms of Use at any time by amending this page. You are expected to check this page from time to time to take notice of any changes we make, as they are binding on you." that may make it to a EULA although the words EULA where removed from the actual text 2 -> 4.1.2 seems to allow it, if we (Gentoo) falls under 4.1 "...non-exclusive, personal, non-transferable license..."
Created attachment 394028 [details] new license
Created attachment 394078 [details] license in source archive Justin attached the updated license which is available via the mendeley homepage. Further the tarball itself provides the binary identical files 'LICENSE' and 'share/doc/mendeleydesktop/License.txt'. This is similar but not identical, neither with the Mendeley-EULA nor with the updated license Justin attached. Which one should be found in the /usr/portage/license folder?
(In reply to Marius Brehler from comment #2) > Created attachment 394078 [details] > license in source archive That's not a license.
Okay, I just asked because this file is included as License.txt in the mendeley tarball. If it's not a license, only Justin's question has to be clarified.
+*mendeleydesktop-1.13.1 (25 Jan 2015) + + 25 Jan 2015; Michael Weber <xmw@gentoo.org> + +files/mendeleydesktop-fix-python3.patch, +mendeleydesktop-1.13.1.ebuild, + -mendeleydesktop-1.12.1.ebuild, -mendeleydesktop-1.12.4.ebuild, metadata.xml: + Version bump (bug 536656, thanks Andrés Becerra Sandoval, Marius Brehler & + Alexander), changed license file (bug 536686), adding myself as co-maintainer. +
I've added the new file and droped the old one after removing the old ebuilds
+ 25 Jan 2015; Justin Lecher <jlec@gentoo.org> license_groups: + Drop Mendeley-EULA and add Mendeley-terms to EULA group, #536686 +
Are there still any issues open here, or could this bug be closed?
