[arch-dev-public] signoff sudo 1.6.9p9 for i686

[Roman Kyrylych]

2007/12/13, Travis Willard <travis at archlinux.org>:
> On Dec 12, 2007 8:55 PM, Eric Belanger <belanger at astro.umontreal.ca> wrote:
> > On Wed, 5 Dec 2007, Eric Belanger wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, 5 Dec 2007, Paul Mattal wrote:
> > >
> > >> Pierre Schmitz wrote:
> > >>> Perhaps a short comment within the PKGBUILD might be usefull to explain such
> > >>> things.
> > >>
> > >> I have reverted the changed, added such a comment, and moved the already
> > >> signed-off i686 package to core.
> > >>
> > >> - P
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > For the license, it might have been better to simply use
> > > license=('custom')
> > > By having 'ISC' by itself, it implies that ISC is one of the common
> > > licenses which it is not.
> > >
> > > Also, in the future, can we keep the packages in testing until it get
> > > signed off for both architectures? Apart from the fact that it will be
> > > more foolproof  as more people had looked at it, we should try to keep the
> > > repo for the 2 architectures as in sync as possible. Otherwise, we might get
> > > complaints and bug reports about why the x86_64 package is still in
> > > testing. Also, it is simpler for us to keep track because it will be hard
> > > to tell after some time why the x86_64 package is still in testing. Is it
> > > because it's waiting to be signed off, because no-one noticed that it was
> > > signed off shortly afterward or if it was just forgotten?
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Is there someone else thinking the same? We should get a resolution on the
> > license field so we can fix it as needed and get the required signoff.
>
> I was told ISC was a 'common' license like BSD, where you still needed
> to install a license to /usr/share/licenses/$pkgname but it's in
> enough use that we support it as a common one.
>
> Was I misinformed?

You were informed correctly.
ISC is pretty much like 2-clause  BSD license (see wikipedia).
The most known package that uses it is, obviously, bind.
It is a common license in Arch - in namcap 2.0 and the latest version
of Travis' checklicense script.
So it shouldn't be listed as just license=('custom').

-- 
Roman Kyrylych (Роман Кирилич)