On zondag, dec 29, 2002, at 00:13 Europe/Amsterdam, Martin v. L=F6wis=20 wrote: > a) we could refuse to incorporate the code in question, or postpone=20 > that until an alternative implementation comes along that does not=20 > have such requirements, or This sounds like overkill. > > b) we could try to contact the authors of the code in question, to=20 > find out whether they would accept other means of acknowledgement=20 > (e.g. mentioning their names in the ACKS file, and putting some text=20= > into the copied source - as Raymond already did) This is probably a good idea. Alternatively, there's another option: c) Add a special directory (Misc/Licenses comes to mind, copy it to=20 lib/python2.3/config/Licenses on install) that has the text files for=20 the various packages that require their license to be in a file of its=20= own. We could even get all fancy, and install only those licenses for=20 which the corresponding code is actually used. > It is certainly the case that we haven't been very careful with such=20= > things in the past (in particular in binary distributions), but that=20= > is IMO no excuse to be more careful now. MacPython has always been fairly careful about this, and I wouldn't be=20= surprised if the same holds for PythonWin. -- - Jack Jansen <Jack.Jansen@oratrix.com> =20 http://www.cwi.nl/~jack - - If I can't dance I don't want to be part of your revolution -- Emma=20 Goldman -
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4