On Tue, 17 May 2016 23:07:38 +0300 Denis Kozlov <dez...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 17 May 2016 at 16:34, Mattias Gaertner <nc-gaert...@netcologne.de> wrote: > > > > > For Debian maintainers and other third party bundles we should gather > > the abbreviated license information in the components/readme.txt, so > > they can easier pick the cherries. > > > > It's not a bad idea. > > Maybe we can go even a step further, to avoid duplication and introduce > some consistency: > > 1) Document licensing terms in *.lpk files of each package (making it > mandatory for all future packages). It always was. If a lpk is missing its license, please report the bug. > 2) Use 2 licensing attributes/nodes in *.lpk files: > A) License Title (e.g. "GPL", "LGPL", "MPL", "MIT", "BSD" ... "Custom" > - so that it can be easily enumerated and summarized); What about double licensing (e.g. "GPL2 or higher", "MPL or LGPL2 with liking exception") or part (e.g. "LGPL-2, except gpc.pas which has custom license")? > B) License Description (i.e. this can be the full license text, in case > of "Custom" licensing terms) > 3) Create IDE tools to summarize licensing terms of: > A) Currently installed packages, > B) All available packages, This info can be shown in "Package Graph" and "Install Packages" in the memo. Read this: you don't need a new dialog for this. > C) Packages used in the current project (if possible) This info can be shown in the Project Inspector. Read this: you don't need a new dialog for this. > If this is suitable, I volunteer to analyze licensing terms of existing > packages and implement the work above. Thanks. Mattias -- _______________________________________________ Lazarus mailing list Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
