On Tue, 17 Sep 2013 19:35:52 +0200 ponder@creshal.de wrote:
On 09/17/2013 06:51 PM, Frederik "Freso" S. Olesen wrote:
Den 17-09-2013 11:18, Storm Dragon skrev:
I thought I had this stuff all figured out lol.
Looks like you've already been helped out quite a bit, so I'll just chime in to add this: Use https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/VCS_PKGBUILD_Guidelines instead of PKGBUILD-git.proto. The -git.proto file is outdated (I could have sworn there was a ticket about this on the bug tracker, but I can't find it now) and shouldn't be followed at the moment.
Also, look over the rest of the PKGBUILD guidelines and documentation on the Wiki.
(About the WTFPL - assuming they (you?) are using the license "correctly", it will include a '© Author' as the 3rd or 4th or so line, which is why the WTFPL isn't among the generically added licenses: https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/33664 )
@WTFPL As far as I understand it, the copyright statement on the fourth line of the license is regarding the license text itself and means Sam Hocevar holds the copyright on the license text and not the software you ship the license with. Therefor when you use the WTFPL you usually slap a second copyright statement above the actual license text and which regards your software as described here [0] in "How do I use the WTFPL" and "Can you explain the WTFPL terms to me?".
But I could be wrong, licenses are weird.
FWIW, I agree with ponder - the author's Copyright doesn't go into the license file any more than it does with the GPL. Just where you, as the software author, specify the license, you point it to the WTFPL COPYING file. The person who closed the bug seems to be confused. -- Jonathan Arnold Webstream: http://hieronymus.soup.io Talent wins games, but team work and intelligence wins championships. Michael Jordan