[arch-dev-public] List of packages with no license information in core, extra

[Eric Belanger]

On Wed, 26 Mar 2008, Travis Willard wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 2:07 PM, Dan McGee <dpmcgee at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 12:35 PM, Travis Willard <travis at archlinux.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 1:16 PM, Dan McGee <dpmcgee at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 11:26 AM, Andreas Radke <a.radke at arcor.de> wrote:
>> > > > Am Wed, 26 Mar 2008 11:13:46 -0500
>> > > >  schrieb "Aaron Griffin" <aaronmgriffin at gmail.com>:
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > > Forwarding from aur-general (Thanks!).
>> > > > > I removed the community packages list too.
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >  we already have a task: https://dev.archlinux.org/todo/43/
>> > >
>> > >  Yeah, this vaguely reminds me of something Travis tried to do a while
>> > >  back but it got lost and/or ignored. [1]
>> > >
>> > >  -Dan
>> > >
>> > >  [1] http://archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/2007-August/001463.html
>> > >  (August? Holy cow!)
>> >
>> >  It wasn't lost - I made a TODO list out of it and it's been there for
>> >  a loooong time, slowly getting looked at.
>> >
>> >  I'm thinking of just blitzing the packages on that list, rebuilding,
>> >  and reuploading with new licenses.  Maybe even sometime soon.
>>
>>  I can probably help out with some of the actual PKGBUILD updates, if
>>  you want. Once we get all those updated, we can then bump the pkgver
>>  and go.
>
> Fair enough - the todo's on the dashboard, go nuts.  I'm just trying
> to decide whether things should be marked 'complete' once the license
> is in the PKGBUILD, or once the package, with the new license, is
> built and uploaded.
>
>
>

I would say once the package, with the new license, is built and uploaded. 
Some of these packages are for stuff that rarely has upstream updates. If 
we just fix the PKGBUILD and wait for an upstream update to rebuild, it 
might take several months (years?) before the 
actual package gets updated with the license. Plus, for some license 
(BSD?), not including the licence goes against the license.

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.