Here's my take on this licensing issue, for what it's worth. I think we should explicitly indicate that authors of .info files are *contributing* those files to the fink project when they submit them for inclusion in the fink trees. As contributed parts of the whole, these files may be modified by others working on fink, and will be distributed along with fink and under the same license conditions as fink itself
When I started the thread, though, I was trying to draw a distinction for the .patch files. I'd still like to see us make that distinction, because I would like everyone to feel free to borrow our patch files for their own use. In that spirit, it makes sense to me that we would say that the patch files inherited the same license their project was released under. As far as retroactively doing this, it seems pretty clear to me (after this discussion) that we cannot do so. So, if there is general agreement about how to proceed, we'll declare that all .info and .patch files submitted after a certain date will be subject to the above contribution and licensing conditions. I'm afraid we'll just have to leave the ambiguity in place concerning older contributions, because I can't see anyone finding the time to chase down permissions from authors. (And if you've got that much time, I've got some better projects for you to work on!) -- Dave ------------------------------------------------------- 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
