I've started a pet project.. going through and adding licenses for
packages without them. Not sure how long I'll be able to keep at it, but
I'll just keep going as long as I can stand it.


I encourage you all to add licenses for packages you maintain, if you
can, while you're in there updating them. There's MANY packages without
them (over 1000). I got through finding licenses for 64 packages in a
couple of hours; they're not always easy to track down. It's much easier
when you already have the source downloaded and can just look for a
COPYING or LICENSE file. Cheat sheet for what we call the various GPL
variants in the license=() array:


* (L)GPL - (L)GPLv2 or any later version
* (L)GPL2 - (L)GPL2 only
* (L)GPL3 - (L)GPL3 or any later version

I just added the license line to the trunk PKGBUILD.. nothing more. So
you should get these on your next rebuild.


Just an attempt to contribute some grunt work to the cause.

- P

On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 12:09 AM, Paul Mattal <paul@mattal.com> wrote:
> I've started a pet project.. going through and adding licenses for packages
> without them. Not sure how long I'll be able to keep at it, but I'll just
> keep going as long as I can stand it.
>
> I encourage you all to add licenses for packages you maintain, if you can,
> while you're in there updating them. There's MANY packages without them
> (over 1000). I got through finding licenses for 64 packages in a couple of
> hours; they're not always easy to track down. It's much easier when you
> already have the source downloaded and can just look for a COPYING or
> LICENSE file. Cheat sheet for what we call the various GPL variants in the
> license=() array:
>
> * (L)GPL - (L)GPLv2 or any later version
> * (L)GPL2 - (L)GPL2 only
> * (L)GPL3 - (L)GPL3 or any later version
>
> I just added the license line to the trunk PKGBUILD.. nothing more. So you
> should get these on your next rebuild.
>
> Just an attempt to contribute some grunt work to the cause.

Thanks Paul! This is good work and definitely appreciated. Once Aaron
gets the emails running from the check_* scripts on gerolde that would
point things out like this, it would be good to see a decrease in
these numbers.

We at least made a push a while back to get licenses for everything
package in core, correct?

-Dan

Dan McGee wrote:

We at least made a push a while back to get licenses for everything
package in core, correct?


Very good question. So whether we did or not, I identified 10 packages
without licenses in core just now and added licenses to those.


If anyone finds any more in core with missing licenses, let me know. We
should definitely get core completely tagged.


- P

I'm trying to add app-admin/supervisor (http://supervisord.org/) to
the tree, but its licensing situation kind of sucks.

The file talks about 4 different licenses.

1: the Repoze license (which I added to the tree in anticipation of this ebuild)
2: a copy of the regular BSD license, should be straightforward
4: the ZPL, which we also have

The third is this:

Medusa was once distributed under a 'free for non-commercial use'
license, but in May of 2000 Sam Rushing changed the license to be
identical to the standard Python license at the time. The standard
Python license has always applied to the core components of Medusa,
this change just frees up the rest of the system, including the http
server, ftp server, utilities, etc. Medusa is therefore under the
following license:

==============================
Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and
its documentation for any purpose and without fee is hereby granted,
provided that the above copyright notice appear in all copies and
that both that copyright notice and this permission notice appear in
supporting documentation, and that the name of Sam Rushing not be
used in advertising or publicity pertaining to distribution of the
software without specific, written prior permission.

SAM RUSHING DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE,
INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS, IN
NO EVENT SHALL SAM RUSHING BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, INDIRECT OR
CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS
OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT,
NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION
WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE.
==============================

The bit between === and === is the PERMISSIONS AND DISCLAIMER
STATEMENT from the CNRI license (which I think is the standard Python
license 10 years ago), but the CNRI license explicitly names the CWI
and Stichting Mathematisch Centrum (i.e. doesn't talk about
<Organization> or <Owner> like some of the other licenses).

Any clues on what to do with this would be greatly appreciated.

Cheers,

Dirkjan