Re: [opensuse-factory] List of valid licenses for packages?
On Thursday 09 of July 2009 11:38:59 Juergen Weigert wrote:
On Jul 09, 09 11:01:36 +0200, Marcus Meissner wrote:
On Thu, Jul 09, 2009 at 10:59:45AM +0200, Michal Vyskocil wrote:
On Thursday 09 of July 2009 08:50:54 Ludwig Nussel wrote:
Hi,
Today I got a bunch of new packages rejected for Factory because of an inexact license tag in the spec file ("GPL" instead of "GPLv2 or later"). How is a packager supposed to know?
The packager currently has no chance to know that. Only resource was the PDB, which was internal to SUSE. since we are opening up, the PDB is no longer authorative.
Until we have a sound set of nstructions in place, including the list of accepted liense names, we shall be very liberal in what we accept.
Can we use http://pack.suse.cz/mvyskocil/licenses.txt as a base of the list? It contains all existing License: fields in SUSE. Simple grep -v ';' licenses.txt should remove packages under several licenses $ grep -v ';' licenses.txt | wc -l 133 But there are still a lot of duplicates like, so some manual review will be necessary Common Public License - v 1.0 Common Public License v1.0 Common Public License v1.0 (CPL) Common Public License Version 1.0 Common Public License Version 1.0 (CPL1.0) It can be implemented also as rpmlint warning, if the License field is not in an exact form.
Please let me know which packages were rejected.
What are acceptable strings in the license tag? Even the example in the wiki¹ has 'GPL'.
Please also let me know where I could find this example. it is Wrong. Even the copy of the Fedora Guidelines we have in [2] say,
Fedora packages can no longer simply use "GPL" or "LGPL" in the License:
field<<
And even some yast2 packages have 'License: GPL' ...
which ones?
I found those packages with GPL: yast2-core/yast2-core.spec:License: GPL yast2-ldap/yast2-ldap.spec:License: GPL yast2-slp/yast2-slp.spec:License: GPL yast2-sound/yast2-sound.spec:License: GPL yast2-transfer/yast2-transfer.spec:License: GPL yast2-vm/yast2-vm.spec:License: GPL yast2/yast2.spec:License: GPL yast2-ntp-client/yast2-ntp-client.spec:License: GPL yast2-repair/yast2-repair.spec:License: GPL yast2-security/yast2-security.spec:License: GPL yast2-sysconfig/yast2-sysconfig.spec:License: GPL
cheers, JW-
Regards Michal Vyskocil -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
Am Donnerstag 09 Juli 2009 schrieb Michal Vyskocil:
On Thursday 09 of July 2009 11:38:59 Juergen Weigert wrote:
On Jul 09, 09 11:01:36 +0200, Marcus Meissner wrote:
On Thu, Jul 09, 2009 at 10:59:45AM +0200, Michal Vyskocil wrote:
On Thursday 09 of July 2009 08:50:54 Ludwig Nussel wrote:
Hi,
Today I got a bunch of new packages rejected for Factory because of an inexact license tag in the spec file ("GPL" instead of "GPLv2 or later"). How is a packager supposed to know?
The packager currently has no chance to know that. Only resource was the PDB, which was internal to SUSE. since we are opening up, the PDB is no longer authorative.
Until we have a sound set of nstructions in place, including the list of accepted liense names, we shall be very liberal in what we accept.
Can we use http://pack.suse.cz/mvyskocil/licenses.txt as a base of the list? It contains all existing License: fields in SUSE. Simple grep -v ';' licenses.txt should remove packages under several licenses
I think this is one big misunderstanding caused by insufficient tools. We will fix the tools in the next weeks and till then we will not block packages with unknown licenses. The problem arises from three reasons: 1. we want to leave the .spec files untouched when checking in 2. packagers can't know the license of the package unless they have written all the code herself. 3. a lot of our packages relied on the license being overwritten on commit. So for the next time we will live with the fact that our tools are not ready and that our packages will have possibly incorrect license tags in factory. In the future, we will overwrite the license in the spec file once the exact value and will possibly recheckin all packages that are affected. Greetings, Stephan -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
Stephan Kulow wrote:
Am Donnerstag 09 Juli 2009 schrieb Michal Vyskocil:
On Jul 09, 09 11:01:36 +0200, Marcus Meissner wrote:
On Thu, Jul 09, 2009 at 10:59:45AM +0200, Michal Vyskocil wrote:
On Thursday 09 of July 2009 08:50:54 Ludwig Nussel wrote:
Hi,
Today I got a bunch of new packages rejected for Factory because of an inexact license tag in the spec file ("GPL" instead of "GPLv2 or later"). How is a packager supposed to know? The packager currently has no chance to know that. Only resource was the PDB, which was internal to SUSE. since we are opening up, the PDB is no longer authorative.
Until we have a sound set of nstructions in place, including the list of accepted liense names, we shall be very liberal in what we accept. Can we use http://pack.suse.cz/mvyskocil/licenses.txt as a base of the
On Thursday 09 of July 2009 11:38:59 Juergen Weigert wrote: list? It contains all existing License: fields in SUSE. Simple grep -v ';' licenses.txt should remove packages under several licenses
I think this is one big misunderstanding caused by insufficient tools. We will fix the tools in the next weeks and till then we will not block packages with unknown licenses.
The problem arises from three reasons: 1. we want to leave the .spec files untouched when checking in 2. packagers can't know the license of the package unless they have written all the code herself. 3. a lot of our packages relied on the license being overwritten on commit.
So for the next time we will live with the fact that our tools are not ready and that our packages will have possibly incorrect license tags in factory.
In the future, we will overwrite the license in the spec file once the exact value and will possibly recheckin all packages that are affected.
Greetings, Stephan
We should create a list similar to this one[1] and add it to our Packaging Guidelines. Ciaran told me that the Legal team is working on it a month ago, but I received no reply since then :-( [1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#SoftwareLicenses -- Best Regards / S pozdravom, Pavol RUSNAK SUSE LINUX, s.r.o openSUSE Community Multiplier Team Lihovarska 1060/12 PGP 0xA6917144 19000 Praha 9, CR prusnak[at]suse.cz http://www.suse.cz -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
participants (3)
-
Michal Vyskocil -
Pavol Rusnak -
Stephan Kulow