4 ms·
I think we read a different article. How I read it: The author is surprised that when packaging their program for Gentoo; they discovered (while following the
by dijit 4y ago
I think we read a different article.
How I read it: The author is surprised that when packaging their program for Gentoo; they discovered (while following the licensing guidelines) that there was a dependency in their chain that had no license, which makes the result not open source.
Gentoos packaging guidelines aren't arbitrary when it comes to licensing, they're precisely right that statically linked binaries are licensed with _all_ dependencies, so any distro shipping his program is doing so illegally. Technically.
- metadat 4y agoRevision: thanks for the feedback, I'm going to bed. Goodnight HN friends!
- dijit 4y agoWhy did you read it as inflammatory? I read it more of a "oh shit, I just discovered this issue in code I was packaging; maybe you, reader, have the same issue in your code!"
- KerrAvon 4y agoI read it the same way as dijit. I would also add that it’s an interesting view into how licensing is supposed to be declared in modern Linux distributions and what happens when that breaks a little bit. I‘be only lightly used Linux since somewhere around 2002, mostly Raspbian, so it may not be as interesting to others?
- judge2020 4y agoTo add, as the article says, the GH issue[0] was posted on Dec 18, 2020 by Norwin @noerw who is a member of the Gitea GitHub organization[1], so Gitea is definitely well-intentioned on clarifying the license of code it uses. 0: https://github.com/seletskiy/godiff/issues/4 https://github.com/seletskiy/godiff/issues/4 1: https://github.com/orgs/go-gitea/people?query=noerw https://github.com/orgs/go-gitea/people?query=noerw