KDE/kdelibs/cmake/modules

[Oswald Buddenhagen]

On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 12:10:36PM +0200, David Faure wrote:
> On Tuesday 05 September 2006 23:47, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 10:05:19AM +0200, David Faure wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 05 September 2006 09:02, Tom Albers wrote:
> > > > In the end the distributed tarball should contain a complete
> > > > version, else my educated guess is that distro's will complain. 
> > >
> > > I don't see why. kdelibs/licenses/BSD is a very clear reference to
> > > a license.
> > > 
> > i think you should learn from your past mistakes in dealing with
> > licensing subtleties. ;-) bottom line is, if rms(*) says it's not
> > enough, then it isn't enough.  and guess what? he did ...
> 
> Hmm? Do you see the full definition of the LGPL in kapplication.h?  I
> don't. I only see a reference to it.
> 
that's not what toma said.
it's not okay to have a license only in kdelibs and refer to it from the
other tar-balls. things are probably different for svn and they *are*
different for split-up packages. point is, every separately distributed
entity must carry a full license. and you may not assume on-line access
- it must be on the same medium as the licensed material itself.

> What is different about the BSD license that makes it mandatory to
> repeat it in full in every file?
> 
hmm ... that in its entirety it is as long as the gpl reference blurb?
just kidding ...

-- 
Hi! I'm a .signature virus! Copy me into your ~/.signature, please!
--
Chaos, panic, and disorder - my work here is done.