Re: PangoXSL license?

Tony Graham wrote:
> Stefan Seefeld <[email protected]> writes:
> 
>>Tony Graham wrote:
>>
>>>If it could be relicensed, then it could be included in the xmlroff
>>>distribution.
>>
>>I'm not sure I understand how it can make a difference license-wise
>>whether you bundle PangoXSL and xmlroff into the same package or not.
>>As long as the licenses are compatible, your package can include code
>>distributed with as many different licenses as you want.
>>
>>Licenses typically talk about 'use' and 'link' etc., and that isn't
>>affected at all by how you package things.
> 
> 
> I think I finally understand your point.
> 
> So how would you propose PangoXSL be bundled with xmlroff?
> 
> How would it work for the SRPM package?

Good question. if both modules are part of the same parent directory,
may be that parent directory could contain some 'meta build system'
that simply delegates to the subdirs for simple builds, but does
a little more for packaging to avoid two distinct packages to be
generated. I acknowledge this getting a bit involved, though...

Regards,
		Stefan

PS: Did you consider switching to subversion (which sf.net now supports) ?
     That would make it easier to modify a project's file system layout.


-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files
for problems?  Stop!  Download the new AJAX search engine that makes
searching your log files as easy as surfing the  web.  DOWNLOAD SPLUNK!
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=103432&bid=230486&dat=121642