-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 23/09/12 08:10 AM, hasufell wrote: > On 09/23/2012 02:04 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >> If we really decide to move things to a new license file, then >> I'd rather avoid the name "as-is" because it is partly the reason >> for the confusion. > > I agree on that. I saw it more than once that people use "as-is" > for the license, just because there is an "as is" clause. >
What about having some "snippet" licenses that could be amalgomated as-needed for a package? IE: - -'as-is' would be the generic "as-is" statement - -'free-non-commercial' would be a "free/unrestricted for non-commercial use" statement - -'free-unrestricted' would be a statement of more or less public domain - -..etc... ..and then ebuilds can include the particular phrases that apply? ie, LICENSE="(as-is free-non-commercial)" , essentially an 'assemble-your-own-license' from the snippets. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) iF4EAREIAAYFAlBgWagACgkQ2ugaI38ACPDY2wD9EnVU9c1E6xW7o2pOhJbj8ocW KHdXq0qiK156X4RFPCEBAJ4aNaEsF0cy615RLOjFm1r/vqNRcX5t91g+1psaNbiC =gwvg -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
