[arch-dev-public] License rebuild: last step
twillard2 at gmail.com
Thu May 14 14:03:27 EDT 2009
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:
>>> 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.
>>> - 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.
>>> 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?
>>> - 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:
>> To be removed completely (no longer build/work):
> 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. :)
More information about the arch-dev-public