[pacman-dev] Release Schedule for 3.0

[Roman Kyrylych]

2007/2/7, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin at gmail.com>:
> On 2/7/07, Roman Kyrylych <roman.kyrylych at gmail.com> wrote:
> > so it won't be hard
> > for him/her to add license field and notify package maintainer about
> > this (and bug mantainer until he fixes his package)
>
> Just for the record, though, what I'm trying to say is that adding a
> license to an AUR package is *non-trivial*.  What about dual licensed
> packages? Is it 'GPL' or 'GPL2' or 'GPLv2' ? Where do I find that
> info? What about custom licenses.  What if it has 3 custom licenses.
> What if it has a common(ish) license that's just not there yet, do I
> add that as a custom license or not?
> It's complex.  It's not as simple as just adding a line to the
> PKGBUILD.  And if we force people to add "license=unknown" then we're
> not really forcing much except some extra typing.

OK, I agree with your point.
We have some guidelines on wiki about using license field. But I think
it should be extended.
GPL = GPL v2 "or (at your opinion) any later version"
GPL2 = GPL v2 _only_
GPL3 = GPL v3 "or (at your opinion) any later version"
BSD/ZLIB/etc = same as custom
(BTW should we should add Artistic? I saw few packages licensed with
it, IIUC it should be treated in the same way as BSD/ZLIB/etc.)
custom = /usr/share/licenses/package-foo-bar/* - there can be
different licenses.
something like license=('GPL' 'BSD' 'custom') should be treated as GPL
+ all licenses in /usr/share/licenses/package-foo-bar/

-- 
Roman Kyrylych (Роман Кирилич)