[arch-dev-public] License rebuild: last step
Hi The license rebuild for core/extra is almost done. Only a few problematic packages remains. I'll post the list here with potential solutions. Read along and comment/discuss as apropriate. ccaudio: - doesn't build. no package depends on it. Remove? codecs: emovix-codecs: - There is no license information in the tarball or on mplayer's site. Other distros use the following licenses: mandriva & PCLinuxOS : Commercial. I haven't looked what this license is about. NetBSD: === There is no license to copy granted for these codecs, and the copyright ownership is unclear. === Gentoo use their 'as-is' license : === This is a generic place holder for a class of licenses that boil down to do no guarantees and all you get is what you have. The language is usually similar to: Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and its documentation for any purpose and without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above copyright notice appears in all copies and that both the copyright notice and this permission notice appear in supporting documentation, and that the same name not be used in advertising or publicity pertaining to distribution of the software without specific, written prior permission. We make no representations about the suitability this software for any purpose. It is provided "as is" without express or implied warranty. You will need to check the license that came with the software for the exact specifics. Generally you are free to do most anything you want with "as is" software but you should not take this license as legal advice. Note: Most all license have an "as is" clause. For our purposes this does not make all software in this category. This category is for software with very little restrictions. The information in this license about licenses is presented "as is". :-P === If we assume that we are allowed to package these codecs, my favorite license is the NetBSD one. Only avifile in community has a specific depends on codecs. If it's not a true dependency like in mplayer (not tested), we could just remove them from the repo. Any comments? dgen-sdl: FS#12564 and license issue. x86_64 package will probably be removed because of this. I guess I could go ahead and add the license to the i686 package. docbook-xml: Flagged out-of-date. As the PKGBUILD is non-trivial, I'll let Jan handle this one. ;) guile-gtk: - No package depends on it, 3% usage. Will need to add a gtkglarea2 in the repo to update it. Move to unsupported? hwd: lshwd: - I mentionned moving them to usupported earlier. Several devs agreed. Any objections? ksymoops: - Seems that it doesn't work with kernel 2.6 (http://linux.derkeiler.com/Mailing-Lists/Kernel/2008-11/msg03316.html). I'm not famiiliar with this stuff though. Remove? mkpxelinux: - Tobias P. custom script. License is unspecified. Tobias: can you give it a license? randline: Source has disappeared. Remove? termcap-compat: - need to rebuild ssh2 (community) without it: FS#14570. Then remove? unionfs-utils: - Stock kernel no longer has unionfs. Move to unsupported? user-mode-linux: - Orphaned, out-of-date, 3% usage. Move to unsupported? xmame-sdl: - FS#11927 - Dead project. We have sdlmame in community which is actively maintained upstream. Remove? xsmbrowser: - Doesn't work: 'Application initialization failed: version conflict for package "Tcl": have 8.5.6, need exactly 8.5'. Move to unsupported? License rebuilds currently in testing. I'll move them in a few days (even if ipw2100-fw doesn't have the required signoffs): ipw2100-fw rbldnsd ypbind-mt ypserv BTW, a couple of vim plugins didn't had any license information (and also ttmkfdir2 part of xorg-font-utils). For these, I used: "license=('unknown')". I hope everyone is fine with that. Eric
Eric Bélanger wrote:
Hi
The license rebuild for core/extra is almost done. Only a few problematic packages remains. I'll post the list here with potential solutions. Read along and comment/discuss as apropriate.
First up, a big cheer for Eric here! He has done a lot of work to get this finished. <snip>
codecs: emovix-codecs: - There is no license information in the tarball or on mplayer's site. <snip> If we assume that we are allowed to package these codecs, my favorite license is the NetBSD one. Only avifile in community has a specific depends on codecs. If it's not a true dependency like in mplayer (not tested), we could just remove them from the repo. Any comments?
Can't we just use "unknown" as in the packages below.
dgen-sdl: FS#12564 and license issue. x86_64 package will probably be removed because of this. I guess I could go ahead and add the license to the i686 package.
Or the whole package could go to unsupported... In fact, for the rest of the packages with issues you mentioned, I am fine with them going to unsupported. Most seem to be cruft at first glance. Allan
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 1:52 AM, Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org> wrote:
Eric Bélanger wrote:
Hi
The license rebuild for core/extra is almost done. Only a few problematic packages remains. I'll post the list here with potential solutions. Read along and comment/discuss as apropriate.
First up, a big cheer for Eric here! He has done a lot of work to get this finished.
Thanks. BTW, this will need to be done for the community repo as well although we'll need to wait until it uses svn before hosting the (L)GPL sources of community packages. However, I won't be doing it. I've done enough rebuild for a while. It will be up to these packages' maintainers and/or TUs. I've made a list: http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/User:Snowman/License_Rebuild_TODO#Commun... and there's a bug report in flyspray.
<snip>
codecs: emovix-codecs: - There is no license information in the tarball or on mplayer's site. <snip> If we assume that we are allowed to package these codecs, my favorite license is the NetBSD one. Only avifile in community has a specific depends on codecs. If it's not a true dependency like in mplayer (not tested), we could just remove them from the repo. Any comments?
Can't we just use "unknown" as in the packages below.
We could. But these codecs were made by big companies with money and lawyers and they care about licensing issues much more than the creators of vim plugins, say. I'm thinking that it might be better to have something more explicit. If the consensus is that "unknown" is OK, then we could go with it.
dgen-sdl: FS#12564 and license issue. x86_64 package will probably be removed because of this. I guess I could go ahead and add the license to the i686 package.
Or the whole package could go to unsupported...
That's another possiblity. That was my initial intention before realizing that removing the x86_64 package would be enough to fix the issue. It has a usage of 4.67 % so it's not really popular. In fact, for the rest of
the packages with issues you mentioned, I am fine with them going to unsupported. Most seem to be cruft at first glance.
Allan
Am Montag, 4. Mai 2009 08:43:10 schrieb Eric Bélanger:
We could. But these codecs were made by big companies with money and lawyers and they care about licensing issues much more than the creators of vim plugins, say. I'm thinking that it might be better to have something more explicit. If the consensus is that "unknown" is OK, then we could go with it.
Imho we should just remove the codecs package. These days you can play all files nicely with mplayer/ffmpeg. Afaik this pacakges includes some dlls from Windows, QuickTime, RealPlayer etc.. Its very likely that distribution is just not allowed. So in the end we have a pacakge with an unclear license and which is not really used by anything. It should be save to move it to AUR. PS: Its also available for i686 only; the x86_64 one is nearly empty. -- Pierre Schmitz Clemens-August-Straße 76 53115 Bonn Telefon 0228 9716608 Mobil 0160 95269831 Jabber pierre@jabber.archlinux.de WWW http://www.archlinux.de
Just bumping to get more input. And doing an update/summary at the same time. On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 1:36 AM, Eric Bélanger <snowmaniscool@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi
The license rebuild for core/extra is almost done. Only a few problematic packages remains. I'll post the list here with potential solutions. Read along and comment/discuss as apropriate.
codecs: emovix-codecs: - There is no license information in the tarball or on mplayer's site. Other distros use the following licenses:
Do we keep them? Remove them? More input would be required to get a concenssus.
dgen-sdl: FS#12564 and license issue. x86_64 package will probably be removed because of this. I guess I could go ahead and add the license to the i686 package.
James contacted the code author and got permission to patch it. So the x86_64 package will be fixed and the license will be added.
docbook-xml: Flagged out-of-date. As the PKGBUILD is non-trivial, I'll let Jan handle this one. ;)
Still needs to be done.
mkpxelinux: - Tobias P. custom script. License is unspecified. Tobias: can you give it a license?
Still needs to be done.
termcap-compat: - need to rebuild ssh2 (community) without it: FS#14570. Then remove?
termcap-compat was removed.
License rebuilds currently in testing. I'll move them in a few days (even if ipw2100-fw doesn't have the required signoffs): ipw2100-fw rbldnsd ypbind-mt ypserv
these rebuilds were moved to core/extra. No objections so far in doing the proposed cleanup: To unsupported: guile-gtk hwd lshwd unionfs-utils user-mode-linux xsmbrowser To be removed completely (no longer build/work): ccaudio ksymoops randline xmame-sdl Thanks, Eric
Because I haven't gotten to it sooner: Eric, you're awesome for doing this. I send you many eHugs On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 11:13 PM, Eric Bélanger <snowmaniscool@gmail.com> wrote:
Just bumping to get more input. And doing an update/summary at the same time.
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 1:36 AM, Eric Bélanger <snowmaniscool@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi
The license rebuild for core/extra is almost done. Only a few problematic packages remains. I'll post the list here with potential solutions. Read along and comment/discuss as apropriate.
codecs: emovix-codecs: - There is no license information in the tarball or on mplayer's site. Other distros use the following licenses:
Do we keep them? Remove them? More input would be required to get a concenssus.
Let's remove it. It's not a dep of anything anyway.
dgen-sdl: FS#12564 and license issue. x86_64 package will probably be removed because of this. I guess I could go ahead and add the license to the i686 package.
James contacted the code author and got permission to patch it. So the x86_64 package will be fixed and the license will be added.
Can we make sure we include the permission blurb in the package license info?
mkpxelinux: - Tobias P. custom script. License is unspecified. Tobias: can you give it a license?
Still needs to be done.
Pinging tpowa - please license this code.
No objections so far in doing the proposed cleanup:
To unsupported: guile-gtk hwd lshwd unionfs-utils user-mode-linux xsmbrowser
To be removed completely (no longer build/work): ccaudio ksymoops randline xmame-sdl
Looks ok to me - isn't xmame kind of a big deal, though? Or I am thinking of xsane?
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 1:53 PM, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:
Because I haven't gotten to it sooner: Eric, you're awesome for doing this. I send you many eHugs
On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 11:13 PM, Eric Bélanger <snowmaniscool@gmail.com> wrote:
Just bumping to get more input. And doing an update/summary at the same time.
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 1:36 AM, Eric Bélanger <snowmaniscool@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi
The license rebuild for core/extra is almost done. Only a few problematic packages remains. I'll post the list here with potential solutions. Read along and comment/discuss as apropriate.
codecs: emovix-codecs: - There is no license information in the tarball or on mplayer's site. Other distros use the following licenses:
Do we keep them? Remove them? More input would be required to get a concenssus.
Let's remove it. It's not a dep of anything anyway.
dgen-sdl: FS#12564 and license issue. x86_64 package will probably be removed because of this. I guess I could go ahead and add the license to the i686 package.
James contacted the code author and got permission to patch it. So the x86_64 package will be fixed and the license will be added.
Can we make sure we include the permission blurb in the package license info?
mkpxelinux: - Tobias P. custom script. License is unspecified. Tobias: can you give it a license?
Still needs to be done.
Pinging tpowa - please license this code.
No objections so far in doing the proposed cleanup:
To unsupported: guile-gtk hwd lshwd unionfs-utils user-mode-linux xsmbrowser
To be removed completely (no longer build/work): ccaudio ksymoops randline xmame-sdl
Looks ok to me - isn't xmame kind of a big deal, though? Or I am thinking of xsane?
xmame is an arcade-game emulator. :)
Am Donnerstag 14 Mai 2009 schrieb Aaron Griffin:
Because I haven't gotten to it sooner: Eric, you're awesome for doing this. I send you many eHugs
On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 11:13 PM, Eric Bélanger <snowmaniscool@gmail.com> wrote:
Just bumping to get more input. And doing an update/summary at the same time.
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 1:36 AM, Eric Bélanger <snowmaniscool@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi
The license rebuild for core/extra is almost done. Only a few problematic packages remains. I'll post the list here with potential solutions. Read along and comment/discuss as apropriate.
codecs: emovix-codecs: - There is no license information in the tarball or on mplayer's site. Other distros use the following licenses:
Do we keep them? Remove them? More input would be required to get a concenssus.
Let's remove it. It's not a dep of anything anyway.
dgen-sdl: FS#12564 and license issue. x86_64 package will probably be removed because of this. I guess I could go ahead and add the license to the i686 package.
James contacted the code author and got permission to patch it. So the x86_64 package will be fixed and the license will be added.
Can we make sure we include the permission blurb in the package license info?
mkpxelinux: - Tobias P. custom script. License is unspecified. Tobias: can you give it a license?
Still needs to be done.
Pinging tpowa - please license this code. Uh yeah sorry, as all mkxyz... programs GPL
greetings tpowa -- Tobias Powalowski Archlinux Developer & Package Maintainer (tpowa) http://www.archlinux.org tpowa@archlinux.org
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 3:00 PM, Tobias Powalowski <t.powa@gmx.de> wrote:
Am Donnerstag 14 Mai 2009 schrieb Aaron Griffin:
Because I haven't gotten to it sooner: Eric, you're awesome for doing this. I send you many eHugs
On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 11:13 PM, Eric Bélanger <snowmaniscool@gmail.com> wrote:
Just bumping to get more input. And doing an update/summary at the same time.
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 1:36 AM, Eric Bélanger <snowmaniscool@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi
The license rebuild for core/extra is almost done. Only a few problematic packages remains. I'll post the list here with potential solutions. Read along and comment/discuss as apropriate.
codecs: emovix-codecs: - There is no license information in the tarball or on mplayer's site. Other distros use the following licenses:
Do we keep them? Remove them? More input would be required to get a concenssus.
Let's remove it. It's not a dep of anything anyway.
It's currently a (optional?) dep of a community pkg. See the first post.
dgen-sdl: FS#12564 and license issue. x86_64 package will probably be removed because of this. I guess I could go ahead and add the license to the i686 package.
James contacted the code author and got permission to patch it. So the x86_64 package will be fixed and the license will be added.
Can we make sure we include the permission blurb in the package license info?
that has been mentionned in the bug report.
mkpxelinux: - Tobias P. custom script. License is unspecified. Tobias: can you give it a license?
Still needs to be done.
Pinging tpowa - please license this code.
Uh yeah sorry, as all mkxyz... programs GPL
Are you going to rebuild it? Otherwise I could do it.
greetings tpowa
-- Tobias Powalowski Archlinux Developer & Package Maintainer (tpowa) http://www.archlinux.org tpowa@archlinux.org
Am Donnerstag 14 Mai 2009 schrieb Eric Bélanger:
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 3:00 PM, Tobias Powalowski <t.powa@gmx.de> wrote:
Am Donnerstag 14 Mai 2009 schrieb Aaron Griffin:
Because I haven't gotten to it sooner: Eric, you're awesome for doing this. I send you many eHugs
On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 11:13 PM, Eric Bélanger <snowmaniscool@gmail.com>
wrote:
Just bumping to get more input. And doing an update/summary at the same time.
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 1:36 AM, Eric Bélanger <snowmaniscool@gmail.com>
wrote:
Hi
The license rebuild for core/extra is almost done. Only a few problematic packages remains. I'll post the list here with potential solutions. Read along and comment/discuss as apropriate.
codecs: emovix-codecs: - There is no license information in the tarball or on mplayer's site. Other distros use the following licenses:
Do we keep them? Remove them? More input would be required to get a concenssus.
Let's remove it. It's not a dep of anything anyway.
It's currently a (optional?) dep of a community pkg. See the first post.
dgen-sdl: FS#12564 and license issue. x86_64 package will probably be removed because of this. I guess I could go ahead and add the license to the i686 package.
James contacted the code author and got permission to patch it. So the x86_64 package will be fixed and the license will be added.
Can we make sure we include the permission blurb in the package license info?
that has been mentionned in the bug report.
mkpxelinux: - Tobias P. custom script. License is unspecified. Tobias: can you give it a license?
Still needs to be done.
Pinging tpowa - please license this code.
Uh yeah sorry, as all mkxyz... programs GPL
Are you going to rebuild it? Otherwise I could do it. I can do it tomorrow, while adding also optdepend array greetings tpowa -- Tobias Powalowski Archlinux Developer & Package Maintainer (tpowa) http://www.archlinux.org tpowa@archlinux.org
Another (final?) update. On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 12:13 AM, Eric Bélanger <snowmaniscool@gmail.com> wrote:
Just bumping to get more input. And doing an update/summary at the same time.
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 1:36 AM, Eric Bélanger <snowmaniscool@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi
The license rebuild for core/extra is almost done. Only a few problematic packages remains. I'll post the list here with potential solutions. Read along and comment/discuss as apropriate.
codecs: emovix-codecs: - There is no license information in the tarball or on mplayer's site. Other distros use the following licenses:
Do we keep them? Remove them? More input would be required to get a concenssus.
No packages in the repo depends on the codecs anymore. We can remove them.
dgen-sdl: FS#12564 and license issue. x86_64 package will probably be removed because of this. I guess I could go ahead and add the license to the i686 package.
James contacted the code author and got permission to patch it. So the x86_64 package will be fixed and the license will be added.
The x86_64 package is now fixed but now the i686 one seg fault after being rebuilt. See bug report for more details or if you want to help fixing it. We might remove it from the repo after all.
docbook-xml: Flagged out-of-date. As the PKGBUILD is non-trivial, I'll let Jan handle this one. ;)
Still needs to be done.
Done. As the update is a major one and Jan seems to be busy, I added the license to the version currently in extra.
mkpxelinux: - Tobias P. custom script. License is unspecified. Tobias: can you give it a license?
Still needs to be done.
Done. Proposed cleanup that will be done at the end of the week unless there's an objection: To unsupported: guile-gtk hwd lshwd unionfs-utils user-mode-linux xsmbrowser To be removed completely (no longer build/work): ccaudio codecs emovix-codecs ksymoops randline xmame-sdl
participants (6)
-
Aaron Griffin
-
Allan McRae
-
Eric Bélanger
-
Pierre Schmitz
-
Tobias Powalowski
-
Travis Willard