On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 1:53 PM, Aaron Griffin <[email protected]> wrote: > 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? >
xmame is an arcade-game emulator. :)
