> As long as the maintainer (aka copyright holder) are allowed to specify their > own license then I'd be fine with it, though.
Copyright holders are always allowed to publish their work under any additional license. No issue there. 2011/2/10 Smartboy <smartboyath...@gmail.com> > On 02/10/2011 04:25 AM, Michael Schubert wrote: > >> I think there is one issue most people are overlooking: licensing is *not* >> the same as ownership. Ownership allows you to release your code under any >> license you want and other users are able to use it under the terms of the >> license. Do not make the error of wanting to transfer ownership instead of >> just a license release. >> >> Also, I fully agree with Peter Lewis' sentiments 2 posts ago: it is dull, >> but important to get right. >> >> Adding to that, a license on an individual PKGBUILD may not be enforcable >> (since it is unlikely to reach the complexity threshold), however, given >> the >> vast amount of scripts in the AUR database as a whole, they will be. Thus >> I >> would propose an "uploads are licensed under [...]" next to the submit >> button, which should sufficiently cover the issue. >> >> My general thoughts: >> - PKGBUILDs should be freely distributable >> - Attribution of the previous authors should be mandatory >> - Commercial exploitation (i.e., using/modifying without giving anything >> back) should not be possible >> >> These points are all covered by the GPL. Plus it would be simple since >> most >> of Arch is already under that license. BSD won't cover the third. Public >> domain won't cover points 2 and 3. Thus, I think GPL would be the (only) >> right choice. >> >> >> 2011/2/10 Xyne<x...@archlinux.ca> >> >> On 2011-02-07 09:13 -0200 (06:1) >>> Bernardo Barros wrote: >>> >>> 2011/2/6 Ray Rashif<sc...@archlinux.org>: >>>> >>>>> # Copyright 1999-2011 Gentoo Foundation >>>>> # Distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License v2 >>>>> >>>> But Arch is a legal entity? Can we put "Arch" as the copyright holder? >>>> >>> That would make it possible for Arch to prevent packagers from >>> distributing >>> their own packages. It would almost certainly never happen, but naive >>> optimism >>> is a bad thing. I have seen OSS projects sell out to corporations before. >>> >>> That's also why I remove the "or any later version" clause from anything >>> that I >>> release under the GPL. No one can guarantee that there will never be a >>> major >>> loophole in a future version, or that all future versions will be in the >>> same >>> spirit. >>> >>> What I do not like about the GPL is that it forces people to republish > derivative works under the GPL license, rather than under another license. > As long as the maintainer (aka copyright holder) are allowed to specify > their own license then I'd be fine with it, though. > > Smartboy >