Because I haven't gotten to it sooner: Eric, you're awesome for doing this. I send you many eHugs
On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 11:13 PM, Eric Bélanger <[email protected]> wrote: > Just bumping to get more input. And doing an update/summary at the same time. > > On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 1:36 AM, Eric Bélanger <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi >> >> The license rebuild for core/extra is almost done. Only a few >> problematic packages remains. I'll post the list here with potential >> solutions. Read along and comment/discuss as apropriate. >> >> codecs: >> emovix-codecs: >> - There is no license information in the tarball or on mplayer's site. >> Other distros use the following licenses: > > Do we keep them? Remove them? More input would be required to get a > concenssus. Let's remove it. It's not a dep of anything anyway. >> dgen-sdl: >> FS#12564 and license issue. x86_64 package will probably be removed >> because of this. I guess I could go ahead and add the license to the >> i686 package. > > James contacted the code author and got permission to patch it. So the > x86_64 package will be fixed and the license will be added. Can we make sure we include the permission blurb in the package license info? >> mkpxelinux: >> - Tobias P. custom script. License is unspecified. Tobias: can you >> give it a license? > > Still needs to be done. Pinging tpowa - please license this code. > No objections so far in doing the proposed cleanup: > > To unsupported: > guile-gtk > hwd > lshwd > unionfs-utils > user-mode-linux > xsmbrowser > > To be removed completely (no longer build/work): > ccaudio > ksymoops > randline > xmame-sdl Looks ok to me - isn't xmame kind of a big deal, though? Or I am thinking of xsane?
