Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2011 00:33:35 +0200
From: Paul Onyschuk <blink@bojary.koba.pl>
To: Fabian Affolter <fabian@affolter-engineering.ch>
Cc: alpine-devel@lists.alpinelinux.org
Subject: Re: [alpine-devel] weplab APKBUILD
Message-Id: <20110626003335.315b70f8.blink@bojary.koba.pl>
In-Reply-To: <4E0640A7.2050301@affolter-engineering.ch>
References: <4E0611C5.3020306@affolter-engineering.ch>
	<20110625200344.26051046.blink@bojary.koba.pl>
	<4E0640A7.2050301@affolter-engineering.ch>
Precedence: list
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Sat, 25 Jun 2011 22:10:15 +0200
Fabian Affolter <fabian@affolter-engineering.ch> wrote:

> 
> According to the wiki build() was mentioned as the section to place
> the "installation" of the license. I changed that in the wiki.
> 

I've seen other work you have done on wiki - you didn't waste time for
sure. Thanks.

> 
> I was wondering if there is any documentation available about the
> valid licenses tags. In the Fedora world the packager should indicate
> if the the license is "GPL 2 (or later version)" or GPL2-only. How is
> this handled for Alpine Linux?
>

As for license cult worship rituals, I'm aware of the problem, mainly
because of my *BSD background. Licensing and copyright is also in my
personal interest, but in this case I don't see problem.

Libraries are the place when you need special attention. In edge
situation you can create derivative work and hit distribution clause
with GPL. With simple binaries like weplab it's much clearer.

Beside that license information in aports is on same level as
description AFAIK - no practicial usage. As comparison in NetBSD pkgsrc
you can flag specific licenses, so some packages are exclueded from
building etc.

-- 
Paul Onyschuk <blink@bojary.koba.pl>


---
Unsubscribe:  alpine-devel+unsubscribe@lists.alpinelinux.org
Help:         alpine-devel+help@lists.alpinelinux.org
---