Arch Linux

Please read this before reporting a bug:

Do NOT report bugs when a package is just outdated, or it is in the AUR. Use the 'flag out of date' link on the package page, or the Mailing List.

REPEAT: Do NOT report bugs for outdated packages!

FS#71022 - Include docs and licenses for glibc

Attached to Project: Arch Linux
Opened by Makoto Mizukami (makotom) - Wednesday, 26 May 2021, 03:47 GMT
Last edited by Allan McRae (Allan) - Thursday, 01 July 2021, 01:08 GMT
Task Type Feature Request
Category Packages: Core
Status Assigned
Assigned To Giancarlo Razzolini (grazzolini)
Architecture All
Severity Medium
Priority Normal
Reported Version
Due in Version Undecided
Due Date Undecided
Percent Complete 0%
Votes 0
Private No



glibc package does not contain human-friendly licence terms, such as `COPYING` or `LICENSES`.

It looks better to be included, as:

1. the licence terms read `These notices all require that a copy of the notice be included in the accompanying documentation and be distributed with binary distributions of the code`, and
2. other distributors also include those documents along with their binary distributions. E.g., [1].

This sample patch [2] would address this concern - please bear in mind that the reporter is not a lawyer at all, anyhow. ;)

Additional info:
* package version(s): glibc-2.33-5, lib32-glibc-2.33-5

This task depends upon

Comment by Allan McRae (Allan) - Wednesday, 26 May 2021, 04:02 GMT
The licenses are listed as GPL and LGPL, which have their text provided by the Arch license package. Probably worth including the other LICENCE stuff though...
Comment by Allan McRae (Allan) - Wednesday, 26 May 2021, 04:09 GMT
$ find "src/glibc/" -maxdepth 1 -type f | grep '/[A-Z.]\{1,\}$'

None of those look like they need installed in a distributed binary package.
Comment by Makoto Mizukami (makotom) - Wednesday, 26 May 2021, 15:26 GMT
IMO, only 1) LICENSES, 2) COPYING and 3) COPYING.LIB are worth considering in general (please assume that my patch puts everything to /usr/share/doc "just in case"). If they are certainly safe to be omitted, that should be okay.

I was believing from LICENSES that "any binary distributions of" glibc - including individual pkg.tar.zst's available as - need to include at least LICENSES (and COPYING* for courtesy), though.
Comment by Eli Schwartz (eschwartz) - Wednesday, 26 May 2021, 15:50 GMT
Not unless global policy for all packages (nothing to do with glibc) would require that. Currently we tag the package as GPL and provide a copy of the GPL on our website for the user to peruse, or install it via pacman -S licenses in the base install.

AFAIK this covers us for our obligation to transmit the GPL subset of the terms... for all packages in the archives.