On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 5:36 PM, Gerardo Exequiel Pozzi<vmlinuz386@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Jan de Groot wrote: >> On Wed, 2009-06-24 at 11:10 -0500, Aaron Griffin wrote: >> >>>> See the source code, is "old" BSD, or maybe the author forgot to >>>> >>> update >>> >>>> the license ? for example tftp/main.c uses 4-clause and uses >>>> >>> readline. >>> >>> You think we should just remove the package? We have alternate tftp >>> implementations, right? >>> > No, just do not link to readline. This action will depend on how much > importance is given to the licenses in Arch. > > This is why the question mark in the title ;) Personally I don't care if > link or not link for these issues in licenses. >> >> I don't want to be an ass here, but shouldn't we remove openssl too? >> > ugh!, this is ugly. > > And if we get in tight, there are conflicts between different versions > of the GPL, this is ugly. To this are the lawyers, who enjoy these > things, and not for us who are programmers, right? > > Good Luck. To paraphrase what Thomas said to me: This is all free software, we should be able to use free software with other free software, damnit. It seems to go against the spirit to do things like this. I like this sentiment. I mean, I get that there are zealots out there who strongly believe in their Chosen License as if it were a soccer team, but seriously - it's all free software, and we may be subtly violating the letter of the license, but the letter of the license is violating the _spirit_ of the license.
