On 16/06/05, Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 00:12:30 +0200 > Torsten Veller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Ok, here is a license: <http://rafb.net/paste/results/j88sYC87.html> > > I couldn't decide if this one is present already. > > All i have checked are slightly different. Maybe someone knows ;) > > > > If it is not in licenses/, can someone suggest a name for this one? > > Looks like as-is.
Reclassifying a license based on what it "looks like" and then redistributing software puts Gentoo into an undesirable legal position. Gentoo developers are not IP lawyers - none of us I have the training to assess whether two licenses are equal. Additionally, many license texts are actually based on something like as-is, but with minor changes. Unless a package explicity says "this software is distributed under the xxx license", then it shouldn't be classed as being under that license - developers have no right to represent the license of a package as being anything other than a perfect reproduction of the license in the package archive. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
