[Slackbuilds-users] Feature request
c.willing at uq.edu.au
Wed Nov 14 23:32:30 UTC 2012
On 15/11/2012, at 8:43 AM, Xavier Maillard <xavier at maillard.im> wrote:
>> License management? Do we really need this? Isn't this going to make
>> things more complicated, unnecessarily? I may sound lazy and selfish,
>> but I do not want to have to check a yet another thing before i submit
>> a SlackBuild. If some software requires registration or has something
>> "special" about it's license, couldn't this be listed in the README?
> I do agree. SlackBuilds are meant to be simple things. It is
> going to be a mess with dep tracking, license and stuff like
> Slackware does not care much about license AFAICS.
Quite separately from the proposal for a new LICENSE field, I don't think that that last statement is true. A possible contra example; you may have noticed that SL-14.0 doesn't provide jre/jdk packages containing reconstituted upstream binaries as was previously the case. I presume this is because of the widespread doubts about the legality of binary redistribution under upstream's java licence.
> P.S: I am also lazy ;)
> SlackBuilds-users mailing list
> SlackBuilds-users at slackbuilds.org
> Archives - http://lists.slackbuilds.org/pipermail/slackbuilds-users/
> FAQ - http://slackbuilds.org/faq/
More information about the SlackBuilds-users