[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: hplip: hp-toolbox advertising?

On Tue, 2007-03-27 at 19:17 +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 11:30:08AM -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
> > > 
> > > Thanks, though I'd argue mixing-n-matching licenses within a (single)
> > > package is bad form.
> > 
> > No, there are countless packages with differently licensed files in
> > them. GPL+LGPL, GPL+(new)BSD, GPL+MIT, MIT+BSD, and on and on and on...
> In those cases the whole package is under the GPL (and, arguably 
> MIT/BSD are almost the same). When there are other mixes it may be less
> clear.

No, not really, you can have a package that provide different binaries.
For example the samba package is mostly GPL software except for
pam_winbind and nss_winbind, which are not under the GPL. The "whole
package" does not mean much. It's the single binaries+libraries that

I can very well see us distributing something like, let's say Xorg, with
a little GPLed GUI in the same package, this does not make the whole
package GPLed.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]