On Sun, 2011-05-15 at 14:08 +0100, davidMbrooke wrote: > On Sun, 2011-05-15 at 01:06 +0200, KP Kirchdoerfer wrote: -snip- > > > My thoughts: > > > - Shouldn't we include a copy of the GPL in all of the disk images, > > > because the GPL says that every user "...should have received a copy of > > > the GNU General Public License along with this program"? > > > - Shouldn't we add a License statement / page to the Wiki which > > > clarifies which license (or licenses) applies to LEAF? > > > > Yes to both :) > > If we simply add e.g. the GPLv2 "COPYING" file to each disk image then > we would be declaring that license applies to LEAF Bering-uClibc 4.0, > which would be premature if there is no consensus. I guess we should do > nothing for the 4.0 release.
KP & David, Historically, we didn't include a copy on the binary distribution due to floppy storage limitations. There should have been a copy of the GPL, etc. license with each contribution in CVS. Now that we have moved to a less constrained target media(s), and git for SCM; I see no reason that we can't include licenses with the compiled distribution. -- Mike Noyes http://sourceforge.net/users/mhnoyes http://www.google.com/profiles/mhnoyes ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Achieve unprecedented app performance and reliability What every C/C++ and Fortran developer should know. Learn how Intel has extended the reach of its next-generation tools to help boost performance applications - inlcuding clusters. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devmay _______________________________________________ leaf-devel mailing list leaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
