2007/10/22, Travis Willard <travisw@wmpub.ca>:
On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 15:00:59 +0200, Damir Perisa wrote
Sunday 21 October 2007, Travis Willard wrote: | If we're feeling REALLY ambitious, this would be a great time to | fix all the licenses in our packages - we still have over 1000 bad | licenses in extra - attached file shows packages that need work.
good idea... regarding your list i have some items:
* we should have the MIT licence in our common licences folder
* we should add all possible CC licences in our common licences folder ... maybe informing creative commons that we support their full scheme of licencing in our licence handling (public relations, networking *g*)
Regarding the above two, I'm all for adding common licenses (MIT, CC) to the licenses package, provided we can - I remember some licenses that are pretty common actually differ in their text from package to package (ie. the devs of the software need to add their own info for copyrights or something) - we can't really provide a common license for those.
From Arch Packaging Standards: The MIT, BSD, zlib/libpng and Python licenses are special cases and cannot be included in the 'common' licenses pkg. For the sake of the license variable, it's treated like a common license (license=('BSD'), license=('MIT'), license=('ZLIB') or license=('Python')) but for the sake of the filesystem, it's a custom license, because each one has its own copyright line. Each MIT, BSD, zlib/libpng or Python licensed package should have its unique license stored in /usr/share/licenses/$pkgname/.
* LGPL2 = LGPL2.1 ? and if some pkg uses 2.0? our LGPL2 is indeed the 2.1 version
How significant are the differences between 2.0 and 2.1? Isn't our GPL2 license 2.1 as well?
There is GPL 2.0 but no 2.1. There is LGPL 2.1 and no 2.0. Check FSF site. ;) We should add [L]GPL 3 licenses, AFAIR there are already packages with these licenses. -- Roman Kyrylych (Роман Кирилич)