Arch Linux

Please read this before reporting a bug:
https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Bug_reporting_guidelines

Do NOT report bugs when a package is just outdated, or it is in the AUR. Use the 'flag out of date' link on the package page, or the Mailing List.

REPEAT: Do NOT report bugs for outdated packages!
Tasklist

FS#29737 - [licenses] Please put licenses have been approved by the OSI

Attached to Project: Arch Linux
Opened by Daniel YC Lin (dlin) - Friday, 04 May 2012, 03:59 GMT
Last edited by Dave Reisner (falconindy) - Thursday, 03 October 2013, 13:45 GMT
Task Type Feature Request
Category Packages: Core
Status Closed
Assigned To Dan McGee (toofishes)
Architecture All
Severity Low
Priority Normal
Reported Version
Due in Version Undecided
Due Date Undecided
Percent Complete 100%
Votes 0
Private No

Details

Description:

Because it is required to put a license line on PKGBUILD.
I suggest refer "License that are popular and widely used or with strong communities" section in

http://www.opensource.org/licenses/category

BTW, it is useful to put all active 58 licenses in common licenses directory.
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical


Additional info:
* package version(s) licenses 2.9-1
This task depends upon

Closed by  Dave Reisner (falconindy)
Thursday, 03 October 2013, 13:45 GMT
Reason for closing:  Won't implement
Additional comments about closing:  Not possible to provide these licenses since they're modified per-project.
Comment by Evangelos Foutras (foutrelis) - Friday, 04 May 2012, 04:38 GMT
Any particular license you have in mind? Most common ones are already included I believe.

Also see: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_Packaging_Standards#Licenses ("The MIT, BSD, zlib/libpng and Python licenses are special cases and cannot be included in the 'common' licenses pkg.")
Comment by Allan McRae (Allan) - Friday, 04 May 2012, 05:09 GMT
I'd actully prefer to remove the licenses package and have all packages install a copy of the distributed license into /usr/share/licenses/$pkgname/
Comment by Daniel YC Lin (dlin) - Friday, 04 May 2012, 05:55 GMT
It is missing BSD2/BSD3.
After re-read the https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_Packaging_Standards
Sorry, I think it is my fault. We can not simplified BSD into the same file.

Is it possible include a 'UNKNOWN'?
That's because the author is not reply, but his source is public on internet.

Comment by Evangelos Foutras (foutrelis) - Friday, 04 May 2012, 06:29 GMT
> Is it possible include a 'UNKNOWN'?
> That's because the author is not reply, but his source is public on internet.

Please reread the article section I linked above.

(Near the end of the section: "If after researching the issue no license can be determined, ...".)
Comment by Daniel YC Lin (dlin) - Friday, 04 May 2012, 06:56 GMT
Sorry about my OLD EYES. I can not found.
Re-read again.
And searched keyword 'no lic' in browser on following pages (English version).

https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_Packaging_Standards
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Licenses
Comment by Evangelos Foutras (foutrelis) - Friday, 04 May 2012, 07:05 GMT
Ah, sorry. I meant here: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/PKGBUILD#license
Comment by Daniel YC Lin (dlin) - Friday, 04 May 2012, 07:17 GMT
I found there are some duplicate.

https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/PKGBUILD#license
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_Packaging_Standards#Licenses

Suggest merge them into PKGBUILD's document.
Comment by Greg (dolby) - Friday, 24 August 2012, 01:25 GMT
Allan said: "I'd actully prefer to remove the licenses package and have all packages install a copy of the distributed license into /usr/share/licenses/$pkgname/"

+1 on this one.  FS#12688  maybe not the best request in the universe but whatever.
Read Jan's reply though, the first one in the ticket, maybe /usr/share/doc would be better since its a more or less standard location about any kind of documentation.

edit: also relevant https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/22798#comment75244

Loading...