Well, it is simply not true. Source code with a non-BSD license that gets imported as an egg does not magically become BSD-licensed. There are also many eggs that are actively in use that are not licensed under the BSD. For example, most of the prerequisites of svnwiki are licensed under the GPL. Your statements are a gross mischaracterization of the situation. The GPL/LGPL versioning is a separate issue, and I would say that most eggs released under that license fall under the default GPL category of "v2 or later", except for the eggs I maintain, which are "GPL v3 or later" for all but one.
By the way, if the egg licenses are an issue for any distribution, then one might consider the Debian approach -- if the license for a particular package is incompatible with Debian, in many cases this is dealt with by approaching the author(s) of that package and asking them if it would be possible to issue a Debian-only open-source compatible license for that package. The inconsistent licenses for the eggs don't matter with Chicken, because the Chicken itself is not distributed together with any eggs, but this might become an issue for a Linux distribution. -Ivan Elf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > i was only referring to currently maintained eggs, as i stated in > the post, and only to those with (L)GPL licensing. all i SAID was > that most currently maintained eggs are released under BSD, and how > to find the licence revision for the LGPL eggs that have been ported > from elsewhere. the LGPL ver is what seemed to matter from > Leonadro's post, which is why that was the issue i responded to. > precisely where am i spreading misinformation? _______________________________________________ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
