arturs at iidea.pl
Wed Apr 24 20:46:30 CEST 2002
Lukas this is a good idea (sorry for broken references, I just subscribed).
What is more I think we need to mark clearly which packages are restricted
in which way.
In PLD-doc/licenses I used the following flags:
# D - forbidden Distribution
this means it should be deleted immediately unless we want a
# B - forbidden Binary distribution
# C - forbidden Commercial use
this isn't really an issue for us
# I - forbidden commercial dIstribution
now this is useful for Linux+ and other CD-ROM vendors
telling them to stay away
# M - some restrictions regarding distributing Modified copies
this tells us that maybe we cannot make the package exactly as we want
# R - forbidden repackaging
this shouldn't be in .rpm's, maybe .src.rpm's
# * - needs clarification
it means we shouldn't do anything unless we clarify the license.
If we had something like this in the License field of
non-GPL-BSD-MIT-other-known-licenses, all would be clear.
Another issue is these "distributable" packages. 99% is just BSD.
But worst is people putting "GPL" when the package has a very restrictive
license. Sorry, I can't check over 3 thousand sources to make sure
all is OK.
More information about the pld-devel-en