SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS Archives

May 2011

SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS@LISTSERV.FNAL.GOV
Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Mime-Version:
1.0
Sender:
Mailling list for Scientific Linux users worldwide <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 12 May 2011 16:20:14 +0200
Reply-To:
Miguel Angel Diaz <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
Re: Version of GPL license
From:
Miguel Angel Diaz <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
quoted-printable
In-Reply-To:
<[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Comments:
To: Frank Lanitz <[log in to unmask]> cc: [log in to unmask]
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (31 lines) 
Hi.

I agree with you that packages have their own licenses. 

But my question follows in other way. Imagine I want to create
other .iso based on S.L.iso. I need to read .iso license to know if I am
doing well.

Regards.




El jue, 12-05-2011 a las 14:32 +0200, Frank Lanitz escribió:
> Am 12.05.2011 13:53, schrieb Miguel Angel Diaz:
> > For each package there is a license, but it should exist a license for
> > SL. 
> > 
> > For example, in Centos you can find a file (GPU.txt or EULA.txt) in a
> > mirror  http://centos.arcticnetwork.ca/5.5/os/x86_64/ . These files show
> > version of GPL license.
> > 
> > Did anyone find these files to SL ?
> 
> Its just not possible IMHO to bundle the iso with one and only license.
> I'd suggest to check the license of each package or go deeper into
> detail, why you need this information at all.
> 
> Cheers,
> Frank

ATOM RSS1 RSS2