[arch-dev-public] rebuilding the whole core repo

[Jason Chu]

> * 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
package.

> * 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.

Jason
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/attachments/20071022/f6b8480b/attachment.pgp>