[arch-dev-public] rebuilding the whole core repo
jason at archlinux.org
Mon Oct 22 10:10:17 EDT 2007
> * we should have the MIT licence in our common licences folder
The MIT license is like the BSD license in that it's customized per
> * we should add all possible CC licences in our common licences
> folder ... maybe informing creative commons that we support their
> full scheme of licencing in our licence handling (public relations,
> networking *g*)
Our original policy was to only distribute a common license in our license
package if it was used by two or more packages. Do any of our packages
have CC licenses?
> * LGPL2 = LGPL2.1 ? and if some pkg uses 2.0? our LGPL2 is indeed the
> 2.1 version
I didn't know there was a difference between LGPL2 and LGPL2.1. Do more
than two packages use the LGPL2.0?
> * some pkgs have licence-formatting issues (Apache instead of APACHE
> or gpl instead of GPL ... we change the formating? licences are
> all-caps always?)
That's how I wrote the namcap rule. License data should have the same case
as the common license directory.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the arch-dev-public