On Mar 27, 2005, at 6:22 AM, David H. wrote:
Yes, ignoring this bullshit licensing issue all together. Four highly paid,
very well known and rather well respected lawyers have told me, seperately,
that we should exactly do that.
I assume you're joking about the lawyer bit, but if I understand your point correctly, I disagree. We shouldn't take licensing issues lightly. It would be hypocritical to ignore licensing for .info files while at the same time expecting everyone to respect the license for Fink itself. There are enough GPL violations going on already (http://gpl-violations.org/) without setting bad examples.
Furthermore, although I do not have four highly paid lawyers at my disposal, I believe the law says that only the copyright holder -- that is, the author of the .info file -- can choose what license his work is distributed under. The Fink community cannot choose for him. Now, realistically, I would say that all .info authors (myself included) don't really care about licensing and consider their work public domain, but that doesn't mean we are free to ignore the issue and treat licenses like BS, as you say.
Trevor
------------------------------------------------------- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click _______________________________________________ Fink-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
