[arch-dev-public] Status Report 2007-10-22

Travis Willard travis at archlinux.org
Thu Oct 25 07:48:09 EDT 2007


On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 21:22:36 -0500
"Dan McGee" <dpmcgee at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 10/24/07, Travis Willard <travis at archlinux.org> wrote:
> > On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 23:01:05 -0400
> > Travis Willard <travis at archlinux.org> wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 19:43:34 -0500
> > > "Aaron Griffin" <aaronmgriffin at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > * License Updates
> > > >
> > > > Travis has provided us a list of packages that have broken or
> > > > improper licenses. This stuff is becoming more and more
> > > > important, so I'd like to get some supervision here as soon as
> > > > possible.
> > > >
> > > > This looks like it's a task that pairs well with the core
> > > > rebuild and extra cleanup. So, anyone participating in those
> > > > tasks should keep this list in mind.
> > > >
> > > > Travis, would it be possible to get this list on the dev wiki?
> > > > Or possibly setup as a todo list?
> > > >
> > > > Ref:
> > > > http://archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/2007-October/002505.html
> > >
> > > Yeah, I can throw that up on the dev wiki or a todo list, I
> > > suppose. I don't know how to do TODOs though - can someone walk
> > > me through it please?
> > >
> > > I'll update the script I have that finds these bad licenses to do
> > > case-insensitive searches as well - that should knock off a few
> > > that're wrongly marked "bad".  Oh, I guess I'll make it accept
> > > "MIT", "BSD", "Python", "zlib", and "libpng" as valid licenses,
> > > but ensure those packages reference /usr/share/licenses/ in their
> > > build function, since they have to install the modified version
> > > of the license.
> > >
> > > I'll get a new list made up shortly, in any case, and either
> > > wikify it or todo it, depending on which I know how to do by that
> > > point. ;)
> >
> > https://www.archlinux.org/todo/43/
> >
> > Todo list created.
> 
> I notice libarchive in the list. Whats the call here?
> license=('BSD')
> 
> For this to be valid, do I need to install the license? I'm assuming
> that is why.

Yeah, the description of the todo got kind of mangled in formatting -
it should read:

Licenses in our official packages need some serious cleanup. 

The following are a list of packages in [extra] with incorrect licenses.

Reasons a package might end up on this list: 
. No, or empty, license= field. 
. License= field containing a license not
in /usr/share/licenses/common 
. License= field containing "custom", "mit", "apache", "bsd", "python",
"zlib", or "libpng" which doesn't reference /usr/share/licenses/
anywhere in build()

Basically, since the BSD, MIT, APACHE, PYTHON, ZLIB, and LIBPNG
licenses require the text be modified for each individual app, but
they're still 'common' licenses, we want to be able to say

license=("BSD")

but we still need to install the slightly-modified license
into /usr/share/licenses.

--
Travis




More information about the arch-dev-public mailing list