[arch-dev-public] List of packages with no license information in core, extra

Aaron Griffin

26 Mar 2008 26 Mar '08

4:13 p.m.

Forwarding from aur-general (Thanks!). I removed the community packages list too. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Ronald van Haren Date: Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 3:52 AM Subject: [aur-general] List of packages with no license information in core, extra and community To: "Discussion about the Arch User Repository (AUR)" , arch-dev-public@archlinux.org Hi all, I just came across some package in extra and noticed it had no license information at all in the PKGBUILD (though the package is not even gpl). So I got the idea of checking if more packages had this problem and came up with a list of the core, extra and community repositories (it should be easy to run the script for unstable and testing too if required). Please all take a look at the list and fix the packages. It really are too much packages without license information! Respective bug reports can be found for core & extra: http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/9971 community: http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/9970 I also attached the lists to this mail. Regards, Ronald

Attachments:

nolicense-core.txt (text/plain — 550 bytes)
nolicense-extra.txt (text/plain — 17.1 KB)

Show replies by date

Andreas Radke

26 Mar 26 Mar

4:26 p.m.

New subject: [arch-dev-public] List of packages with no license information in core, extra

Am Wed, 26 Mar 2008 11:13:46 -0500 schrieb "Aaron Griffin" :

...

Forwarding from aur-general (Thanks!). I removed the community packages list too.

we already have a task: https://dev.archlinux.org/todo/43/ I'll try to have a look at my part of the list soon. -Andy

Dan McGee

5:16 p.m.

New subject: [arch-dev-public] List of packages with no license information in core, extra

On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 11:26 AM, Andreas Radke wrote:

...

Am Wed, 26 Mar 2008 11:13:46 -0500 schrieb "Aaron Griffin" :

...
Forwarding from aur-general (Thanks!). I removed the community packages list too.

we already have a task: https://dev.archlinux.org/todo/43/

Yeah, this vaguely reminds me of something Travis tried to do a while back but it got lost and/or ignored. [1] -Dan [1] http://archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/2007-August/001463.html (August? Holy cow!)

Travis Willard

5:35 p.m.

New subject: [arch-dev-public] List of packages with no license information in core, extra

On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 1:16 PM, Dan McGee wrote:

...

On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 11:26 AM, Andreas Radke wrote:

...
Am Wed, 26 Mar 2008 11:13:46 -0500 schrieb "Aaron Griffin" :

...
Forwarding from aur-general (Thanks!). I removed the community packages list too.

we already have a task: https://dev.archlinux.org/todo/43/

Yeah, this vaguely reminds me of something Travis tried to do a while back but it got lost and/or ignored. [1]

-Dan

[1] http://archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/2007-August/001463.html (August? Holy cow!)

It wasn't lost - I made a TODO list out of it and it's been there for a loooong time, slowly getting looked at. I'm thinking of just blitzing the packages on that list, rebuilding, and reuploading with new licenses. Maybe even sometime soon.

Dan McGee

6:07 p.m.

New subject: [arch-dev-public] List of packages with no license information in core, extra

On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 12:35 PM, Travis Willard wrote:

...

On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 1:16 PM, Dan McGee wrote:

...
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 11:26 AM, Andreas Radke wrote:

...
Am Wed, 26 Mar 2008 11:13:46 -0500 schrieb "Aaron Griffin" :

...
Forwarding from aur-general (Thanks!). I removed the community packages list too.

we already have a task: https://dev.archlinux.org/todo/43/

Yeah, this vaguely reminds me of something Travis tried to do a while back but it got lost and/or ignored. [1]

-Dan

[1] http://archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/2007-August/001463.html (August? Holy cow!)

It wasn't lost - I made a TODO list out of it and it's been there for a loooong time, slowly getting looked at.

I'm thinking of just blitzing the packages on that list, rebuilding, and reuploading with new licenses. Maybe even sometime soon.

I can probably help out with some of the actual PKGBUILD updates, if you want. Once we get all those updated, we can then bump the pkgver and go. -Dan

Eric Belanger

6:08 p.m.

New subject: [arch-dev-public] List of packages with no license information in core, extra

On Wed, 26 Mar 2008, Dan McGee wrote:

...

On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 12:35 PM, Travis Willard wrote:

...
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 1:16 PM, Dan McGee wrote:

...
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 11:26 AM, Andreas Radke wrote:

...
Am Wed, 26 Mar 2008 11:13:46 -0500 schrieb "Aaron Griffin" :

...
Forwarding from aur-general (Thanks!). I removed the community packages list too.

we already have a task: https://dev.archlinux.org/todo/43/

Yeah, this vaguely reminds me of something Travis tried to do a while back but it got lost and/or ignored. [1]

-Dan

[1] http://archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/2007-August/001463.html (August? Holy cow!)

It wasn't lost - I made a TODO list out of it and it's been there for a loooong time, slowly getting looked at.

I'm thinking of just blitzing the packages on that list, rebuilding, and reuploading with new licenses. Maybe even sometime soon.

I can probably help out with some of the actual PKGBUILD updates, if you want. Once we get all those updated, we can then bump the pkgver and go.

-Dan

I haven't read the thread's begining but I could help out too. It might be also worth it to make sure the man pages gets installed in /usr/share/man. That way we'll do the FSH man pages todo at the same time as the license todo. There's also a bug report about an important number of PKGBUILD with missing md5sums. We should make sure these gets added too (when building packages for other devs, sometime the md5sums are missing). -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.

Travis Willard

6:18 p.m.

New subject: [arch-dev-public] List of packages with no license information in core, extra

On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 2:07 PM, Dan McGee wrote:

...

On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 12:35 PM, Travis Willard wrote:

...
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 1:16 PM, Dan McGee wrote:

...
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 11:26 AM, Andreas Radke wrote:

...
Am Wed, 26 Mar 2008 11:13:46 -0500 schrieb "Aaron Griffin" :

...
Forwarding from aur-general (Thanks!). I removed the community packages list too.

we already have a task: https://dev.archlinux.org/todo/43/

Yeah, this vaguely reminds me of something Travis tried to do a while back but it got lost and/or ignored. [1]

-Dan

[1] http://archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/2007-August/001463.html (August? Holy cow!)

It wasn't lost - I made a TODO list out of it and it's been there for a loooong time, slowly getting looked at.

I'm thinking of just blitzing the packages on that list, rebuilding, and reuploading with new licenses. Maybe even sometime soon.

I can probably help out with some of the actual PKGBUILD updates, if you want. Once we get all those updated, we can then bump the pkgver and go.

Fair enough - the todo's on the dashboard, go nuts. I'm just trying to decide whether things should be marked 'complete' once the license is in the PKGBUILD, or once the package, with the new license, is built and uploaded.

Eric Belanger

7:45 p.m.

New subject: [arch-dev-public] List of packages with no license information in core, extra

On Wed, 26 Mar 2008, Travis Willard wrote:

...

On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 2:07 PM, Dan McGee wrote:

...
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 12:35 PM, Travis Willard wrote:

...
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 1:16 PM, Dan McGee wrote:

...
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 11:26 AM, Andreas Radke wrote:

...
Am Wed, 26 Mar 2008 11:13:46 -0500 schrieb "Aaron Griffin" :

...
Forwarding from aur-general (Thanks!). I removed the community packages list too.

we already have a task: https://dev.archlinux.org/todo/43/

Yeah, this vaguely reminds me of something Travis tried to do a while back but it got lost and/or ignored. [1]

-Dan

[1] http://archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/2007-August/001463.html (August? Holy cow!)

It wasn't lost - I made a TODO list out of it and it's been there for a loooong time, slowly getting looked at.

I'm thinking of just blitzing the packages on that list, rebuilding, and reuploading with new licenses. Maybe even sometime soon.

I can probably help out with some of the actual PKGBUILD updates, if you want. Once we get all those updated, we can then bump the pkgver and go.

Fair enough - the todo's on the dashboard, go nuts. I'm just trying to decide whether things should be marked 'complete' once the license is in the PKGBUILD, or once the package, with the new license, is built and uploaded.

I would say once the package, with the new license, is built and uploaded. Some of these packages are for stuff that rarely has upstream updates. If we just fix the PKGBUILD and wait for an upstream update to rebuild, it might take several months (years?) before the actual package gets updated with the license. Plus, for some license (BSD?), not including the licence goes against the license. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.

5882

Age (days ago)

5882

Last active (days ago)

List overview

Download

7 comments

5 participants

participants (5)

Aaron Griffin
Andreas Radke
Dan McGee
Eric Belanger
Travis Willard