Benjamin Reed wrote:
+1
I think public domain is a good idea for such things.
Public domain doesn't do things like disclaim liability. I suggest the
MIT X11 license instead:
Copyright (c) year copyright holders
Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a
copy of this
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
David R. Morrison wrote:
| Yes, probably we should say that patches for open source projects
| inherit the license.
I'm kind of late into the fray here (had a short vacation), but would
suggest that we notify submitters that we prefer .info and .patch
Peter O'Gorman wrote:
I'm kind of late into the fray here (had a short vacation), but would
suggest that we notify submitters that we prefer .info and .patch files to
be placed in the public domain, but that explicit licenses can be added to
comments in the .info file, or the patch file, if
David R. Morrison [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Here's my take on this licensing issue, for what it's worth.
I think we should explicitly indicate that authors of .info files are
*contributing* those files to the fink project when they submit them for
inclusion in the fink trees. As contributed
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
Daniel E. Macks wrote:
| David R. Morrison [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
|
|Here's my take on this licensing issue, for what it's worth.
|
|I think we should explicitly indicate that authors of .info files are
|*contributing* those files to the fink
How does Debian handle this? They use a similar info/patch system,
right? And I've seen from other issues that debian-legal is very
involved in licensing issues so I'm guessing they've thought this out.
Hanspeter
--
Hanspeter Niederstrasser, Ph.D.Dept. of Cell Biology
Doesn't the .info contain the copyright statement (in at least some
cases)? Isn't there some implication here? To my mind, when reading the
document, the copyright applies to its bearing instrument unless
expressly stated otherwise. Considering that the copyright (at least in
spirit) applies
