On Mar 30, 2005, at 6:48 AM, Daniel E. Macks wrote:
David R. Morrison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: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?
I am thinking of the patch file as a contribution to the upstream body of software, rather than to fink, and so think it should inherit the upstream license in most cases.
This discussion started because someone wanted to borrow .patches we have made to some BSD-licensed software, and wanted to make sure that we weren't imposing the more restrictive GPL license on those patches.
If the latter, I don't think that's necessarily correct for Restrictive packages.
Yes, probably we should say that patches for open source projects inherit the license.
-- 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 [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
