Re: wip/teapot license question

[Hauke Fath <hauke%Espresso.Rhein-Neckar.DE@localhost>]

At 17:18 Uhr -0400 2.4.2010, Greg Troxel wrote:
>> Is this "free use, but no commercial distribution" type covered by a
>> standard license type, or would I have to add a teapot-license file?
>
>If you find an existing file in pkgsrc/licenses with textually identical
>contents (aside from the name), then you can use it.

That's a daunting task... how is the '--legalese' option to grep(1) coming
along? ;)

I just grepped pkgsrc/licenses/ for 'derived', and nothing obvious came up.

>  But we do not have
>any notion of abstracting the terms to thinks lik "no commercial
>distribution".  These notions are necessarily vague and people who care
>have to read the license.

I agree. I'll stay on the safe side then, and create a 'teapot-license'
file for it.

        hauke

--
"It's never straight up and down"     (DEVO)