Op 11 feb. 2011 17:35 schreef "Pierre Chapuis" <catwell@archlinux.us> het volgende:
On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 13:17:29 +0000, Michael Schubert <mschu.dev@gmail.com>
As long as the maintainer (aka copyright holder) are allowed to specify
their
own license then I'd be fine with it, though.
Copyright holders are always allowed to publish their work under any additional license. No issue there.
Well, except when you adopt a package. Then there are two copyright holders and things get ugly.
I think this discussion is pointless anyway: PKGBUILDs are build recipes, not code. They usually do not contain enough information to be
wrote: license-able.
So even if someone stuck a copy of the GPL at the top of a PKGBUILD I would simply ignore it, because he had no right to put a license on "./configure; make; make install" or something similar in the first place.
-- Pierre 'catwell' Chapuis
I agree, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to license a few simple build instructions. Applied patches could be licensed but they should be compatible with the original license of the package. If someone adds a license to a PKGBUILD I woukd just simply rewrite it from scratch. It is not that it is very difficult in almost all of the cases. Ronald