| Summary: | dev-util/bzr-1.5 bad license | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Gentoo Linux | Reporter: | Migol <migolsk8> |
| Component: | New packages | Assignee: | Ali Polatel (RETIRED) <hawking> |
| Status: | RESOLVED INVALID | ||
| Severity: | trivial | CC: | pva |
| Priority: | High | ||
| Version: | unspecified | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| URL: | https://launchpad.net/bzr | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- | |
| Attachments: | Fixed ebuild | ||
|
Description
Migol
2008-07-21 12:52:48 UTC
Created attachment 160999 [details]
Fixed ebuild
Fixed ebuild
Hi, please provide diff'd ebuilds next time. The '||' operator is a prefix operator in ebuilds as opposed to what you would expect in bash. LICENSE="|| (GPL-2 GPL3)" But there is no information inside sources about GPL-3 license. They are GPL-2 only as I see. The only paragraph about GPL-3 I found was (in doc/developers/HACKING.txt):
Copyright
---------
The copyright policy for bzr was recently made clear in this email (edited
for grammatical correctness)::
The attached patch cleans up the copyright and license statements in
the bzr source. It also adds tests to help us remember to add them
with the correct text.
We had the problem that lots of our files were "Copyright Canonical
Development Ltd" which is not a real company, and some other variations
on this theme. Also, some files were missing the GPL statements.
I want to be clear about the intent of this patch, since copyright can
be a little controversial.
1) The big motivation for this is not to shut out the community, but
just to clean up all of the invalid copyright statements.
2) It has been the general policy for bzr that we want a single
copyright holder for all of the core code. This is following the model
set by the FSF, which makes it easier to update the code to a new
license in case problems are encountered. (For example, if we want to
upgrade the project universally to GPL v3 it is much simpler if there is
a single copyright holder). It also makes it clearer if copyright is
ever debated, there is a single holder, which makes it easier to defend
in court, etc. (I think the FSF position is that if you assign them
copyright, they can defend it in court rather than you needing to, and
I'm sure Canonical would do the same).
As such, Canonical has requested copyright assignments from all of the
major contributers.
So they just mention possibility to move to GPL-3, but they are still GPL-2. If you have any further information feel free to reopen.
|
