Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 17:34:56 -0700 (PDT) From: Kris Kennaway <kris@hub.freebsd.org> To: Tim Vanderhoek <vanderh@ecf.utoronto.ca> Cc: John Reynolds~ <jreynold@sedona.ch.intel.com>, ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Question on COPYING file ... Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9910111728270.23795-100000@hub.freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <19991011194505.A10180@mad>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 11 Oct 1999, Tim Vanderhoek wrote: > The purpose of the handbook is not to cause software authors to hate > us. From what John says, the author has more-or-less seen some light > in this particular case, but if an author asks that his software be > distributed in such and such a manner, then we should respect this > (within reason). Okay, granted. > > always make that source available. So /usr/src is fine.. > > /usr/src != /usr/ports/x/x/work/ I'm not sure we're on the same wavelength. I was referring to the GPL clause which requires you to distribute the COPYING file with the source, but says nothing about binary distributions (only that anyone can obtain this source). We include the file with /usr/src to take care of the GNU sources we ship there, and it's up to the authors of any code we distribute in ports whether or not they license their code under the GPL (i.e. if they include the COPYING file with their work). In other words, we fulfil our responsibilities to the GPL, and it's up to the authors of the distfiles (not ports or packages) we distribute to fulfil theirs as appropriate (by including the license in the distfile). This was all in response to the original claim that we need to distribute the COPYING file with our _binary_ distributions as well, which is patently false. Kris ---- XOR for AES -- join the campaign! To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.10.9910111728270.23795-100000>