Tom spot Callaway wrote:
Can you run another status report on the Licensing?
Attached are reports by owner and package. The package report now
also lists the owner.
The executive summary for the impatient:
Invalid licenses: 2044 out of 4746 (43.07%) [as of 2007-09-21 17:39 UTC]
Progress has slowed a bit in the past few weeks. It's soon time for
another nag mail to kick in another round of fixes and/or time to send
mail directly to owners and co-maintainers. :)
Also, please run another report showing just those packages (and
owners) who are License: Artistic (not GPL* or Artistic), just
Artistic.
I think there are still some package listed here that needn't be. Is
"GPLv2+ or Artistic" valid? I believe you said it was and would add
it to the wiki, but it is not there and thus still not in the rpmlint
config (which I'm using as the source for valid licenses, updated to
match wiki rev 91).
The packages affected are:
perl
perl-Jcode
perl-Unicode-Map
perl-Unicode-Map8
perl-Unicode-MapUTF8
perl-Unicode-String
procmail
GPLv2+ or Artistic is valid for perl and procmail AFAIK, but it is
likely a copy/paste error for the others I believe.
The list of packages with License tags matching "^Artistic$" is
attached. This regex misses a number of perl packages with a license
of "Artistic or GPL." Those packages likely just need to change the
license to "GPL+ or Artistic", assuming they are licensed the same as
Perl.
There are a couple of others missed by this which are caught if the
trailing $ is removed from the regex:
pv (jhrozek): "Artistic (modified)"
The homepage for pv (
http://www.ivarch.com/programs/pv.shtml) has this
news entry:
1.0.1 - 4 August 2007 [1.0.1 notes]
* licensing change from Artistic to Artistic 2.0
yap (gemi): "Artistic/LGPL"
The yap tarball's README says the license is Artistic 2, and that
matches what is included in the Artistic file. Some parts are also
available as LGPL. I didn't look closely to see if any version is
specified.
I haven't looked at many of the Artistic licensed packages closely,
but I do recall checking the cpan2rpm package. The license is simply
wrong (and has been for years, unfortunately). It is GPLv2+. See:
http://search.cpan.org/src/ECALDER/cpan2rpm-2.028/LICENSE
http://search.cpan.org/dist/cpan2rpm/cpan2rpm#LICENCE_AND_COPYRIGHT
(I think someone got confused because the default license tag created
in spec files generated by cpan2rpm is Artistic.)
Lastly, I'll attach the python script I've been working on to produce
the reports. It's not the best code for sure, but hopefully it's not
too awful. Improvements are welcome.
--
Todd OpenPGP -> KeyID: 0xBEAF0CE3 | URL:
www.pobox.com/~tmz/pgp
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Get the last word in: Apologize.