Outstanding issues for LFS-6.2

Matthew Burgess matthew at linuxfromscratch.org
Sun Jun 25 12:37:50 PDT 2006

Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Matthew Burgess wrote:
>> Yep, I think #1765 (update LFS license) can be retargetted as it's not a
>> show-stopper and needs to be done properly so will take time.  The
>> current license has served us well enough so far, I think.
> I would really like to get this into 6.2 so the BLFS and LFS books use
> the same license.  I did submit a patch that fixes the book.  The only
> thing that takes time is the decision to do it.  We've been sitting on
> our collective hands on this for over two months.  How long does it take
> to make the decision?

Well, I've already made the decision.  I think it makes sense for the 
LFS book to have the same license as the BLFS book.  However, I don't 
think I have the authority to change the license without the consensus 
of the copyright holders, which, despite the copyright notice in the 
book, isn't just Gerard.  So, we'd have to go back and find all those 
that have contributed substantial changes to the book and ask for their 
permission to change the license.  I don't think this can be done within 
the currently planned time-scales of the 6.2 release, but if you want to 
prove me wrong on that, feel free :-)



More information about the lfs-dev mailing list