[arch-dev-public] License rebuild: last step

[Travis Willard]

On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 1:53 PM, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin at gmail.com> wrote:
> Because I haven't gotten to it sooner: Eric, you're awesome for doing
> this. I send you many eHugs
>
> On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 11:13 PM, Eric Bélanger <snowmaniscool at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Just bumping to get more input.  And doing an update/summary at the same time.
>>
>> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 1:36 AM, Eric Bélanger <snowmaniscool at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> codecs:
>>> emovix-codecs:
>>> - There is no license information in the tarball or on mplayer's site.
>>> Other distros use the following licenses:
>>
>> Do we keep them? Remove them? More input would be required to get a concenssus.
>
> Let's remove it. It's not a dep of anything anyway.
>
>>> dgen-sdl:
>>> 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
>>> i686 package.
>>
>> James contacted the code author and got permission to patch it. So the
>> x86_64 package will be fixed and the license will be added.
>
> Can we make sure we include the permission blurb in the package license info?
>
>>> mkpxelinux:
>>> - Tobias P. custom script. License is unspecified. Tobias: can you
>>> give it a license?
>>
>> Still needs to be done.
>
> Pinging tpowa - please license this code.
>
>> No objections so far in doing the proposed cleanup:
>>
>> To unsupported:
>> guile-gtk
>> hwd
>> lshwd
>> unionfs-utils
>> user-mode-linux
>> xsmbrowser
>>
>> To be removed completely (no longer build/work):
>> ccaudio
>> ksymoops
>> randline
>> xmame-sdl
>
> Looks ok to me - isn't xmame kind of a big deal, though? Or I am
> thinking of xsane?
>

xmame is an arcade-game emulator. :)