[Slackbuilds-users] Feature request

Christoph Willing 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:

> Hi,
>> 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
> that.
> 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 ;)
> 	Xavier
> -- 
> http://www.gnu.org
> http://www.april.org
> http://www.lolica.org
> _______________________________________________
> SlackBuilds-users mailing list
> SlackBuilds-users at slackbuilds.org
> http://lists.slackbuilds.org/mailman/listinfo/slackbuilds-users
> Archives - http://lists.slackbuilds.org/pipermail/slackbuilds-users/
> FAQ - http://slackbuilds.org/faq/

More information about the SlackBuilds-users mailing list