Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-packaging (145 mails)
| < Previous | Next > |
Re: [opensuse-packaging] Building packages with linking a license from licenses.rpm
- From: Lukas Ocilka <lukas.ocilka@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 13:17:16 +0200
- Message-id: <46A7313C.8010703@xxxxxxx>
Reinhard Max wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 at 12:00, Ludwig Nussel wrote:
>
>> You wouldn't be able to install the package without breaking
>> dependencies. That's annoying at least.
>
> Right, but that wouldn't matter from a legal point of view. If a
> license requires us to include the license text with the binary
> package, we might break the license no matter how hard we make it to
> install the package without the license file being installed as well.
>
> GPLv2 says (section 1.) "[...] and give any other recipients of the
> Program a copy of this License along with the Program." So, is setting
> a symlink to a file and adding a dependency to the package enough to
> fulfill the "along with the Program" requirement?
When I saw this discussion, I decided to ask JW and Coolo if the
solution is legal and Coolo wrote me this:
--- cut ---
Well, as Jürgen is both maintainer of that package and part of our
license review team, I don't feel any need to play lawyer. So stop
worrying :)
--- cut ---
Let's accept that, please :)
Bye
Lukas
> On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 at 12:00, Ludwig Nussel wrote:
>
>> You wouldn't be able to install the package without breaking
>> dependencies. That's annoying at least.
>
> Right, but that wouldn't matter from a legal point of view. If a
> license requires us to include the license text with the binary
> package, we might break the license no matter how hard we make it to
> install the package without the license file being installed as well.
>
> GPLv2 says (section 1.) "[...] and give any other recipients of the
> Program a copy of this License along with the Program." So, is setting
> a symlink to a file and adding a dependency to the package enough to
> fulfill the "along with the Program" requirement?
When I saw this discussion, I decided to ask JW and Coolo if the
solution is legal and Coolo wrote me this:
--- cut ---
Well, as Jürgen is both maintainer of that package and part of our
license review team, I don't feel any need to play lawyer. So stop
worrying :)
--- cut ---
Let's accept that, please :)
Bye
Lukas
| < Previous | Next > |