[arch-dev-public] Updating the licenses package
dpmcgee at gmail.com
Fri Mar 30 12:39:20 EDT 2007
On 3/30/07, Jason Chu <jason at archlinux.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 19:20:53 +0300
> "Roman Kyrylych" <roman.kyrylych at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 2007/3/30, Roman Kyrylych <roman.kyrylych at gmail.com>:
> > > 2007/3/30, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin at gmail.com>:
> > > > 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.
More information about the arch-dev-public