>>>>> On Sun, 23 Sep 2012, hasufell wrote: >> If we really decide to move things to a new license file, then I'd >> rather avoid the name "as-is" because it is partly the reason for >> the confusion.
> I agree on that. I saw it more than once that people use "as-is" for > the license, just because there is an "as is" clause. Right. Here's a small (but prominent) sample, namely all "as-is" packages from the amd64 livecd and stage3: - net-misc/ntp: "as-is" looks fine as main license, although some parts of the code are under different licenses like GPL (but I haven't checked in detail what gets installed). - sys-apps/hdparm: "as-is" approximates it (but different wording). Debian lists this package as "BSD". - dev-util/yacc: "public-domain" according to README. - media-libs/libpng: Comes with its own license. Free. - media-libs/portaudio: "MIT" - net-misc/openssh: BSD-ish, something like "BSD BSD-2 as-is BEER-WARE public-domain" would be close. - net-wireless/rfkill: "ISC" - sys-apps/man-pages: Patchwork of files with different free licenses. "as-is GPL-2+ BSD MIT LDP-1 public-domain" would cover most of it. While the above are at least free software (mostly BSD/MIT like), I think that as-is is completely wrong for the following: - app-admin/passook: Seems to have no license at all. - net-wireless/zd1201-firmware: No license in tarball or on homepage. - net-wireless/prism54-firmware: Ditto, and package is mirror restricted. (How can it be on our install media then?) Ulrich
