[arch-projects] [archweb] Licensing issues with JS code

[Andrew Gregory]

On 07/09/17 at 11:21am, Jelle van der Waa wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I do some more work on Archweb these days, so I might be able to help.
> 
> On 07/08/17 at 06:38pm, Adonay Felipe Nogueira via arch-projects wrote:
> > For a short description of the issue, see:
> > [[https://labs.parabola.nu/issues/1405]].
> > 
> > However, we must also note that Archweb is now newer than the Archweb
> > release used by Parabola.
> > 
> > Nonethless, as far as I know, each of the files still exist, although
> > some of them don't even have license indication for the site's visitor
> > (this is true for "visualize/static/visualize.js" and
> > "mirrors/static/mirror_status.js").
> 
> homepage.js does not have a license header either, and personally I
> don't see the need to add it.
> 
> Looking at the issue on the bugtracker, I'm not sure what you want to
> achieve? personally I don't see any point in upgrading to GPLv3.

Presumably, the main thing they want to achieve license compliance.
GPLv2 is not compatible with GPLv3 or Apache 2.0.  If archweb includes
components under those licenses, it may be in violation.

apg