[arch-dev-public] License rebuild: last step
snowmaniscool at gmail.com
Mon May 4 01:36:23 EDT 2009
The license rebuild for core/extra is almost done. Only a few
problematic packages remains. I'll post the list here with potential
solutions. Read along and comment/discuss as apropriate.
- doesn't build. no package depends on it. Remove?
- There is no license information in the tarball or on mplayer's site.
Other distros use the following licenses:
mandriva & PCLinuxOS : Commercial. I haven't looked what this license is about.
There is no license to copy granted for these codecs, and the
copyright ownership is unclear.
Gentoo use their 'as-is' license :
This is a generic place holder for a class of licenses that boil down to do
no guarantees and all you get is what you have. The language is usually
Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and its
documentation for any purpose and without fee is hereby granted, provided
that the above copyright notice appears in all copies and that both the
copyright notice and this permission notice appear in supporting
documentation, and that the same name not be used in advertising or
publicity pertaining to distribution of the software without specific,
written prior permission. We make no representations about the
suitability this software for any purpose. It is provided "as is"
without express or implied warranty.
You will need to check the license that came with the software for the exact
specifics. Generally you are free to do most anything you want with "as is"
software but you should not take this license as legal advice.
Note: Most all license have an "as is" clause. For our purposes this does
not make all software in this category. This category is for software with
very little restrictions.
The information in this license about licenses is presented "as is". :-P
If we assume that we are allowed to package these codecs, my favorite
license is the NetBSD one. Only avifile in community has a specific
depends on codecs. If it's not a true dependency like in mplayer (not
tested), we could just remove them from the repo. Any comments?
FS#12564 and license issue. x86_64 package will probably be removed
because of this. I guess I could go ahead and add the license to the
Flagged out-of-date. As the PKGBUILD is non-trivial, I'll let Jan
handle this one. ;)
- No package depends on it, 3% usage. Will need to add a gtkglarea2 in
the repo to update it. Move to unsupported?
- I mentionned moving them to usupported earlier. Several devs agreed.
- Seems that it doesn't work with kernel 2.6
I'm not famiiliar with this stuff though. Remove?
- Tobias P. custom script. License is unspecified. Tobias: can you
give it a license?
Source has disappeared. Remove?
- need to rebuild ssh2 (community) without it: FS#14570. Then remove?
- Stock kernel no longer has unionfs. Move to unsupported?
- Orphaned, out-of-date, 3% usage. Move to unsupported?
- FS#11927 - Dead project. We have sdlmame in community which is
actively maintained upstream. Remove?
- Doesn't work: 'Application initialization failed: version conflict
for package "Tcl": have 8.5.6, need exactly 8.5'. Move to unsupported?
License rebuilds currently in testing. I'll move them in a few days
(even if ipw2100-fw doesn't have the required signoffs):
BTW, a couple of vim plugins didn't had any license information (and
also ttmkfdir2 part of xorg-font-utils). For these, I used:
"license=('unknown')". I hope everyone is fine with that.
More information about the arch-dev-public