On Sat, Mar 26, 2005 at 09:51:23AM -0500, David R. Morrison wrote: > Yesterday's post about the licensing restrictions for fink's .patch files > raises an interesting set of questions. > > We've never stated any licensing rules for our .info or .patch files, > although we have received contributions from hundreds of people. This > was probably a mistake. > > It seemed evident to several of us on IRC this morning that the .patch > file should be seen as inheriting the license of the software being patched. > > But what about the .info files? Should we declare them to be part of fink, > and therefore under the GPL? Can we do this retroactively, even though > we didn't make it clear to contributers in the past?
'cuz I'm reading 4 days of -devel at once, I mentally merged this thread and the "the gpl and openssl" one in my mind and f'uped there my thought about .info. Executive summary: I don't think we can in general declare copyright terms for others' works. OTOH, .info seem GPL since people are contributing them to be part of a thing (Fink) that is GPL. dan -- Daniel Macks [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.netspace.org/~dmacks ------------------------------------------------------- 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 Fink-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
