Hi Michel, Great to hear you're working on packaging GNUstep/Etoile :) The purpose of http://etoileos.com/dev/licensing is just to explain why we favour permissive licences for Etoile. Each component has its own license, however, and not all are BSD or MIT. (e.g. Vindaloo and PopplerKit are GPL).
Which tarball is missing license texts? I just checked http://download.gna.org/etoile/etoile-0.4.1.tar.gz and the license texts are present: there should be a COPYING file in the directory of each component. I see a few inconsistencies - Melodie is missing a COPYING file (my fault, will fix for 0.4.2) and Jabber's is named "LICENSE" instead of COPYING. Do you see anything else that is unclear? It's true that we don't consistently use license header in all source files. I don't know about the legal side of this, but it should be clear from the COPYING file what the license is. Eric On 2009-10-03, at 5:09 PM, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote: > Hello, > > We're getting ready to package Étoilé in Fedora -- the only packages > we are missing before we can build it are gnustep-gui and > gnustep-back, which are both currently under review. > > As such, and in view of the impending 0.4.2 release, it'd be great if > we could get the Étoilé licensing clarified. > > From http://etoileos.com/dev/licensing/, the licensing is supposed to > be either BSD or MIT, but a lot of source files are missing license > headers, and also the license texts are not shipped with the official > tarballs. > > Hope this can be addressed soon -- I'd love to have an additional > desktop shipping with Fedora in time for Fedora 13 next spring. > Perhaps even with its own live CD... > > Best Regards, > > -- > Michel Alexandre Salim > GNUstep SIG, Fedora Project > > _______________________________________________ > Etoile-packaging mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/etoile-packaging _______________________________________________ Etoile-packaging mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/etoile-packaging
