What license for our packaging?

[Cyril Brulebois]

Eddy Petrișor <eddy.petrisor at gmail.com> (23/08/2008):
> Hello,

Hello,

first: Cc-ing ddg at ldo to get a possibly wider audience.

> I propose that, from now on, we use the BSD license for our
> packaging[2].
> 
> What do you think?

I'm not against, since it's a pretty permissive license. I'm just used
to using the same license as upstream's, so as to make sure patches etc.
can be integrated w/o any second thought from upstream's POV. (Of course
that doesn't apply to upstreams who have a license mess, but that's
another story ;))

> [0] I 'borrowed' MadCoder's refresh-patches mechanism from the
> tokyocabinet package (seen it in MadCoder's packaging with git
> presentation). I checked the license terms/incompatibilities I saw
> that packaging was BSD licensed (cool)

I'm disconnected right now, but it might have been nice to point to the
slides, just in case.

Mraw,
KiBi.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-games-devel/attachments/20080921/8eaec3f3/attachment.pgp