[arch-projects] [archweb] Licensing issues with JS code
Adonay Felipe Nogueira
adfeno at hyperbola.info
Sun Jan 7 15:12:50 UTC 2018
What's the status of this after our last message here?
I have some questions that you can ask the ArchLinux meetings in order
help solve this:
1. For things provided by the ArchLinux project and which have the
problematic licenses, has ArchLinux agreed license change?
Rephrasing the above: has the copyright holders agreed to do so?
2. If no license change will be done, can we remove the GPL-2.0-only
() incompatible dependencies?
 SPDX recently reverted their decision to use "GPL-2.0" as indicator
of the GPL 2 without "or later" option. See
2017-07-08T17:38:50-0300 Adonay Felipe Nogueira wrote:
> Hi all,
> I have an issue to report. However, please note that I'm not subscribed
> to this mailing list, so I'd recommend you to Cc me when replying.
> For a short description of the issue, see:
> 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
> In case of doubt, I might be able to help with some of the points
> described in the referenced issue.
> Respectfully, Adonay.
- Palestrante e consultor sobre /software/ livre (não confundir com
- "WhatsApp"? Ele não é livre. Por favor, veja formas de se comunicar
instantaneamente comigo no endereço abaixo.
- Contato: https://libreplanet.org/wiki/User:Adfeno#vCard
- Arquivos comuns aceitos (apenas sem DRM): Corel Draw, Microsoft
Office, MP3, MP4, WMA, WMV.
- Arquivos comuns aceitos e enviados: CSV, GNU Dia, GNU Emacs Org, GNU
GIMP, Inkscape SVG, JPG, LibreOffice (padrão ODF), OGG, OPUS, PDF
(apenas sem DRM), PNG, TXT, WEBM.
More information about the arch-projects