2007/3/30, Roman Kyrylych :

2007/3/30, Aaron Griffin :

...

Hey all, I actually just came across this page here: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical

I think we should go through and add some more common ones to the licenses packages (it's text, it'll compress well). This comes up because we probably need an update for the Python license anyway.

Maybe we can even add all of them? Only problem is they don't seem to export plain text, so we can't really automate it... ewww.

There's no need to add them all, IMO. Many of them are not used in any of available PKGBUILDs, and some require providing full text (BSD-like, MIT, zlib/libpng), but some most common of them could be added. It's importand to have correct licenses in package. See http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/5637 for example. Also, while changing the package, take a look at http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/5623

Oh, and yet one notice: why all directories in /usr/share/licenses are capitalized (i.e. RUBY, APACHE)??? -- Roman Kyrylych (Роман Кирилич)

On 3/30/07, Jason Chu wrote:

On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 19:20:53 +0300 "Roman Kyrylych" wrote:

...

2007/3/30, Roman Kyrylych :

...

2007/3/30, Aaron Griffin :

...

Hey all, I actually just came across this page here: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical

I think we should go through and add some more common ones to the licenses packages (it's text, it'll compress well). This comes up because we probably need an update for the Python license anyway.

Maybe we can even add all of them? Only problem is they don't seem to export plain text, so we can't really automate it... ewww.

There's no need to add them all, IMO. Many of them are not used in any of available PKGBUILDs, and some require providing full text (BSD-like, MIT, zlib/libpng), but some most common of them could be added. It's importand to have correct licenses in package. See http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/5637 for example. Also, while changing the package, take a look at http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/5623

Oh, and yet one notice: why all directories in /usr/share/licenses are capitalized (i.e. RUBY, APACHE)???

It all started with the GPL. There was GPL, BSD, ... APACHE should have been APL (I thought that's how I did it originally...).

Almost all of the licenses have a shortened form.

What do you suggest?

I feel like people understand GPL, LGPL, BSD just fine. But I would have no idea what APL was until you told me, that just isn't a common way to refer to it. The question is- what do people put in the license field when it is an Apache license? We should have consistancy there- a license name should be identical to the license reference. -Dan

On 3/30/07, Dan McGee wrote:

On 3/30/07, Jason Chu wrote:

...

On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 19:20:53 +0300 "Roman Kyrylych" wrote:

...

2007/3/30, Roman Kyrylych :

...

2007/3/30, Aaron Griffin :

...

Hey all, I actually just came across this page here: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical

I think we should go through and add some more common ones to the licenses packages (it's text, it'll compress well). This comes up because we probably need an update for the Python license anyway.

Maybe we can even add all of them? Only problem is they don't seem to export plain text, so we can't really automate it... ewww.

There's no need to add them all, IMO. Many of them are not used in any of available PKGBUILDs, and some require providing full text (BSD-like, MIT, zlib/libpng), but some most common of them could be added. It's importand to have correct licenses in package. See http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/5637 for example. Also, while changing the package, take a look at http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/5623

Oh, and yet one notice: why all directories in /usr/share/licenses are capitalized (i.e. RUBY, APACHE)???

It all started with the GPL. There was GPL, BSD, ... APACHE should have been APL (I thought that's how I did it originally...).

Almost all of the licenses have a shortened form.

What do you suggest?

I feel like people understand GPL, LGPL, BSD just fine. But I would have no idea what APL was until you told me, that just isn't a common way to refer to it. The question is- what do people put in the license field when it is an Apache license? We should have consistancy there- a license name should be identical to the license reference.

We also, currently, have the option to change whatever we want. Right now nothing enforces license handling, but in the future, pacman will. This means we should standardize this *before* we add that feature. I'm a big fan of all lowercase names, but dunno if that'd work for "gpl"... still. Re: apache license: /usr/share/licenses/apl <-- real license /usr/share/licenses/apache <-- symlink to apl - Aaron

On 3/30/07, Roman Kyrylych wrote:

2007/3/30, Dan McGee :

...

On 3/30/07, Jason Chu wrote:

...

On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 19:20:53 +0300 "Roman Kyrylych" wrote:

...

2007/3/30, Roman Kyrylych :

...

2007/3/30, Aaron Griffin :

...

Hey all, I actually just came across this page here: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical

I think we should go through and add some more common ones to the licenses packages (it's text, it'll compress well). This comes up because we probably need an update for the Python license anyway.

Maybe we can even add all of them? Only problem is they don't seem to export plain text, so we can't really automate it... ewww.

There's no need to add them all, IMO. Many of them are not used in any of available PKGBUILDs, and some require providing full text (BSD-like, MIT, zlib/libpng), but some most common of them could be added. It's importand to have correct licenses in package. See http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/5637 for example. Also, while changing the package, take a look at http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/5623

Oh, and yet one notice: why all directories in /usr/share/licenses are capitalized (i.e. RUBY, APACHE)???

It all started with the GPL. There was GPL, BSD, ... APACHE should have been APL (I thought that's how I did it originally...).

Almost all of the licenses have a shortened form.

What do you suggest?

I just don't like capitalized "APACHE" instead of "Apache" or "APL":-P

...

I feel like people understand GPL, LGPL, BSD just fine. But I would have no idea what APL was until you told me, that just isn't a common way to refer to it. The question is- what do people put in the license field when it is an Apache license? We should have consistancy there- a license name should be identical to the license reference.

Agree. And I think Arch Packaging Standards should be extended in part of licenses. I've just added notes about zlib/libpng to the wiki. It would be nice to have a complete list of licenses (with short descriptions of not very common ones).

Feel free to add to this, but here is a start: http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Licenses -Dan