Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-factory (491 mails)
| < Previous | Next > |
Re: [opensuse-factory] muffin
- From: Kim Leyendecker <leyendecker@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2012 21:37:37 +0100
- Message-id: <BLU0-SMTP430D74B6F322B725C4DBCA5A5760@phx.gbl>
On 04.02.2012 21:00, Christian Boltz wrote:
Really? I ever thought that the spec file, as *part* of the package, has
to be under the same license then the package. Wouldn't that make more
sense?
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@xxxxxxxxxxxx
A license regarding the spec file? It's the first time I see this oneIt's not really new - the only difference is that in the past a
comming...
"default" license header [1] was added silently(!) when you submitted to
Factory. (Which I didn't really like because it claimed a copyright for
SUSE - even if nobody @suse.com ever touched the specfile.)
Now things seem to have changed and you can - and have to - define the
spec license yourself.
Really? I ever thought that the spec file, as *part* of the package, has
to be under the same license then the package. Wouldn't that make more
sense?
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@xxxxxxxxxxxx
| < Previous | Next > |