David R. Morrison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > 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
That makes a lot of sense. We should add a note about this on the Submissions tracker new-item header. > 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. By "their project", do you mean Fink or each's package? If the latter, I don't think that's necessarily correct for Restrictive packages. Who knows what crazy redistribution or derived-work terms the author may have attached. Well hmm, is a .patch or a .info a "derived work" (which has copyright implications) or just some insrtuctions one follows (or causes Fink to follow) and act upon one's personal copy of the sources? 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 [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
