[arch-general] Packages without license field in official repos
travis at archlinux.org
Fri Feb 22 16:44:27 EST 2008
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 4:40 PM, Xavi Soler <xavi at interrupciones.net> wrote:
> On Friday 22 February 2008 19:36:38 Travis Willard wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 11:50 AM, Xavi Soler <xavi at interrupciones.net>
> > > My intention is to know the number of non-free packages installed on my
> > > system. In Debian I can use 'vrms' . I think Arch has nothing
> > > similar, but I can start programming an application like 'vrms' (maybe
> > > using libalpm or calling pacman directly).
> > >
> > > My first test has been typing:
> > >
> > > $ pacman -Q | pacman -Qi | less
> > >
> > > and reading carefully the license fields: most (BSDs and MITs specially)
> > > say 'custom'. The big problem I've found is that, quite often, I read
> > > the word 'none' there, but I can't understant how can it happen in
> > > packages stored in official repos. There are a lot of packages without
> > > license field.
> > >
> > > I could do a heavy research to know which packages include a license
> > > field and which don't, and then warn their mantainers. But it would be a
> > > waste of time.
> > A waste of time we've already done. We know which packages don't have
> > licenses - we even have a huge todo list of them. We'll get to them
> > at some point.
> I was talking about packages that have a known license but it is not in the
> PKGBUILD. For example, acpi is a GPL program in [extra] which don't have a
> licence field in its PKGBUILD.
So was I.
More information about the arch-general