[GSoC] libelf license

[Clemens Lang]

On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 08:05:10AM +1000, Joshua Root wrote:
> It's not a problem in the sense of making it impossible to distribute
> the code. It is a problem in the sense of us not wanting to have
> multiple licenses.

What licenses does the MacPorts project want? Should everything
distributed as "MacPorts" be BSD-licensed? And what type of BSD-license?
Is the only license acceptable the 2-clause BSD-license in use atm, or
would it be fine to redistribute an Apple-modified 3-clause BSD-license
where the 3rd clause is something like "you may not advertise with the
name Apple unless explicitly permitted to"?

Also, what kind of workarounds do we have to redistribute things not
licensed like the project wants? Is weak linking against a library
distributed as port acceptable? (Think of an LGPL lib somebody wants to
use in MacPorts. Would it be acceptable to distribute that lib as
separate port, weakly link against it and tell users to install that
port if they want to use $new_feature?)

I'm asking now, because I'd probably ask this question soon anyway…

-- 
Clemens Lang
GSoC Student