On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 21:22:36 -0500 "Dan McGee" <dpmcgee@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/24/07, Travis Willard <travis@archlinux.org> wrote:
On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 23:01:05 -0400 Travis Willard <travis@archlinux.org> wrote:
On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 19:43:34 -0500 "Aaron Griffin" <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:
* License Updates
Travis has provided us a list of packages that have broken or improper licenses. This stuff is becoming more and more important, so I'd like to get some supervision here as soon as possible.
This looks like it's a task that pairs well with the core rebuild and extra cleanup. So, anyone participating in those tasks should keep this list in mind.
Travis, would it be possible to get this list on the dev wiki? Or possibly setup as a todo list?
Ref: http://archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/2007-October/002505.html
Yeah, I can throw that up on the dev wiki or a todo list, I suppose. I don't know how to do TODOs though - can someone walk me through it please?
I'll update the script I have that finds these bad licenses to do case-insensitive searches as well - that should knock off a few that're wrongly marked "bad". Oh, I guess I'll make it accept "MIT", "BSD", "Python", "zlib", and "libpng" as valid licenses, but ensure those packages reference /usr/share/licenses/ in their build function, since they have to install the modified version of the license.
I'll get a new list made up shortly, in any case, and either wikify it or todo it, depending on which I know how to do by that point. ;)
https://www.archlinux.org/todo/43/
Todo list created.
I notice libarchive in the list. Whats the call here? license=('BSD')
For this to be valid, do I need to install the license? I'm assuming that is why.
Yeah, the description of the todo got kind of mangled in formatting - it should read: Licenses in our official packages need some serious cleanup. The following are a list of packages in [extra] with incorrect licenses. Reasons a package might end up on this list: . No, or empty, license= field. . License= field containing a license not in /usr/share/licenses/common . License= field containing "custom", "mit", "apache", "bsd", "python", "zlib", or "libpng" which doesn't reference /usr/share/licenses/ anywhere in build() Basically, since the BSD, MIT, APACHE, PYTHON, ZLIB, and LIBPNG licenses require the text be modified for each individual app, but they're still 'common' licenses, we want to be able to say license=("BSD") but we still need to install the slightly-modified license into /usr/share/licenses. -- Travis