Besides GNOME handles extension the same way. The creater/maintainer just ticks a box which states "I verify that my extension can be distributed under the terms of the GPLv2+ ". Furthermore many big companies treat their agreements similar. Accepting a license by a click of a button should be fine IMHO.
On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 5:15 PM, Gordian Edenhofer < [email protected]> wrote: > If everything in the git-repo would be GPL licensed than forking should be > no problem since we could just place one copy in the main tree. > Nevertheless you idea is worth considering but it might be problematic > because this header must be in every patch, install-script etc. > > On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 5:04 PM, Joris Steyn <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I like this idea, but I don't think it's sound to consider something >> GPL-licensed because the author checked a box or accepted the TOC. I doubt >> that has any legal significance. >> >> Wouldn't it make more sense to use a mandatory two-line header like below? >> The pre-receive hook could enforce that. >> >> # Copyright [year or year range] [author name] >> # Distributed under the terms of the [license name] >> >> This is what Gentoo does for ebuilds in its package database. This way the >> licensing information isn't lost when the repository is forked. >> >> >> On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 4:46 PM, David Manouchehri < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >> > Lukas Fleischer <[email protected]> wrote: >> > > In order to `git push` a package repository, you need to add your SSH >> > > public key to the AUR profile which means you need to log into the web >> > > interface and accept the ToS. No need for something complicated >> > > involving Git hooks and email address filters. >> > >> > You're right, I forgot about that. The only real purpose of having a >> hook >> > would just be to serve as a reminder. >> > >> > Johannes L?thberg <[email protected]> wrote: >> > > This is Git, not SVN. >> > >> > Sorry, I mixed my hooks up. Didn't mean to start a fight with that one. >> > Both Johannes and Dan are right; it's impossible to have a pre-commit >> hook >> > on the server side, but it's entirely possible to have a pre-receive >> hook >> > on the server side. I believe both would have the same result if you put >> > `exit 1` in them though (failing to apply commit). >> > >> > >
