Hello, on Samstag, 5. Februar 2011, Nicolaus Millin wrote:
- http://www.vorkon.de/vkd/vkd-vorkon-yipi/OS_RPM_licenses.txt An alphabetical list of the 28.000+ packets with their licenses.
[SuSE vs. SUSE] A good question. Maybe the friend of ... had a company which needed urgently some money? Sorry, I can't follow you there. Do you mean there's a company
I just run some statistics on them, and the most popular licenses (used by at least 100 packages) are: (total: 28688 packages) 3969 GPLv2+ 3620 GPL 1960 GPL v2 or later 1423 LGPLv2.1+ 788 LGPL 745 GPLv2 738 BSD 687 MIT 639 GNU General Public License (GPL) 627 GPLv2+ ; LGPLv2.1+ 626 LGPL v2.1 or later 444 GPLv2+ or Ruby 436 MIT License (or similar) 390 BSD3c 318 BSD3c(or similar) 286 BSD 3-Clause 265 BSD License 248 LGPLv2.1 244 GPL+ or Artistic 241 Perl License 216 GPLv3+ 204 GPLv3 193 GPL v2 only 192 Apache Software License .. 191 GNU General Public License version 2 or later (GPL v2 or later) 186 The Apache Software License 183 LGPLv3 183 GPL v2 178 GNU General Public License version 2 (GPL v2) 170 Artistic 163 Apache Software License 159 BSD3 157 X11/MIT 144 Other uncritical OpenSource License 132 Artistic License 130 LGPLv2.0+ 115 GNU GPL v2 109 The PHP License, version 3.01 105 Public Domain, Freeware You can generate the full list (about 1000 lines) yourself easily: cut -d| -f3 < OS_RPM_licenses.txt |sort | uniq -c |sort -nr As you can see, some licenses are listed more than once with slightly different names (for example "GPLv2+" and "GPL v2 and later"). You can also see that some license tags are quite unspecific ("GPL" without version note). In theory they are all worth bugreports, but 3620 packages marked as "GPL" mean lots of work and the bugzilla screening team will probably kill you if you don't assign the bugreports directly to the packager ;-) Options are: a) send a mail to opensuse-packaging and ask all packagers to fix the license tags with the next package update (should probably happen after 11.4 is branched). b) do it yourself and send a SR with the changed spec file to the packager c) BOFH method: create a whitelist or blacklist of licenses and let rpmlint fail the build for unclear license strings like just "GPL". Needless to say that this should be done after 11.4 is branched, otherwise we'd have to delay the release ;-) @jw: My initial question to you was "should the naming scheme as shown on http://license.opensuse.org/?w=1 be the preferred version for the License: tag?" - but now I see that you have both "GPLv2+" and "GPL 2.0 or later" in this list. What about showing only the preferred variant of the license string there? ;-) BTW: it would be nice to make the URLs offered in the license details (after clicking the "Analyze" button) clickable... Regards, Christian Boltz -- that sells capital U's? [> Thorsten Kukuk and Rasmus Plewe] -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org