Hi, On Wed, 25 Jul 2007, Petr Cerny wrote:
> Johannes Meixner wrote: > > Hello, > > > > On Jul 24 18:31 Reinhard Max wrote (shortened): > >> As packages can be downloaded and installed without also downloading > >> the licenses package, people could view this as a license violation. > > > > This is what I am talking about all the time. > > The whole issue is not a technical issue it is a legal issue. > > Are we allowed to remove a license text (or whatever legal stuff) > > form a package and provide it via a totally other package which > > is made from totally other sources? > > AFAIK with e.g. GPL v2 this is possible (although not welcome). Yet I > think there are licenses which *must* be included with either binaries > or source (if not both). If this is assumed to be "space saving" it is > IMHO at wrong place (not mentioning that having files like > license-7484ec123119be81a1ab4da3bba47ba9 is a little bit strange). Sigh. The filenames of the packages themself would still just be named COPYING (or whatever the original names was). They will just happen to be symlinks to strangely named files. If we're adventurous we could even use hardlinks if possible, and then there actually would just be the link count which would make the user see that the files are shared between different packages. Ciao, Michael. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
