[aur-general] AUR & Copyright
If I may add my two cents, I would go for GPL for PKGBUILDs, as it ensures stuff remains OSS. Though some broader discussion/voting may be good. And a compromise in form of selection from OSS licences when uploading, defaulting to one could not be that hard to implement. Nicky -- Don't it always seem to go That you don't know what you've got Till it's gone (Joni Mitchell)
2011/2/6 Nicky726 <nicky726@gmail.com>:
If I may add my two cents, I would go for GPL for PKGBUILDs, as it ensures stuff remains OSS. Though some broader discussion/voting may be good. And a compromise in form of selection from OSS licences when uploading, defaulting to one could not be that hard to implement.
Nicky -- Don't it always seem to go That you don't know what you've got Till it's gone
(Joni Mitchell)
Why you didn't reply on the thread ? :S now this thread is splitted without reason -- Angel Velásquez angvp @ irc.freenode.net Arch Linux Developer / Trusted User Linux Counter: #359909 http://www.angvp.com
On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 23:06, Nicky726 <nicky726@gmail.com> wrote:
If I may add my two cents, I would go for GPL for PKGBUILDs, as it ensures stuff remains OSS. Though some broader discussion/voting may be good. And a compromise in form of selection from OSS licences when uploading, defaulting to one could not be that hard to implement.
Again, IANAL. AIUI a PKGBUILD is just a plugin module to makepkg, and PKGBUILDs do use the API offered by makepkg and other support scripts. So maybe this discussion is void simply because makepkg is released under GPL2 (or later) and hence PKGBUILDs automatically fall under the same license? /M -- Magnus Therning OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4 email: magnus@therning.org jabber: magnus@therning.org twitter: magthe http://therning.org/magnus
participants (3)
-
Magnus Therning
-
Nicky726
-
Ángel Velásquez