Forwarding this to the other mailing lists so everyone is informed on
what we are trying to do with this. I'll try to answer questions if
you have them.
Note the last point too, guys- not sure how many official packages
have this problem, but we should try to put custom licenses where they
belong.
-Dan
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Dan McGee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Jul 11, 2007 10:12 AM
Subject: Re: [arch-dev-public] GPL v3
To: Public mailing list for ArchLinux development
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On 7/11/07, Roman Kyrylych <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2007/7/11, Dan McGee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > And how about this for some licenses stuff:
> > license=('GPL') - licensed under GPL version 2 or later
> > license=('GPL2') - licensed under GPL version 2 only
> > license=('GPL3') - licensed under GPL version 3 or later
> >
> > licenses package:
> > licenses/common/GPL/license.txt
> > licenses/common/GPL3/license.txt
> > licenses/common/GPL2/ -> licenses/common/GPL/
> > ...
>
> +1
> That's exactly what I've thought about.
Done. Let me know if there are any problems.
Also killed a few bugs while I was at it: 5637, 6039, 7172
If anyone likes playing with the wiki, this page needs some updates:
http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Licenses
And we should ensure that our packages are putting licenses in
/usr/share/licenses/<pkgname>, not
/usr/share/licenses/custom/<pkgname>, as noted here:
http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/5623
-Dan
_______________________________________________
arch mailing list
[email protected]
http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
