On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 09:43:17AM +0100, Darren J Moffat wrote: > Shawn Walker wrote: > > license The keyword identifying the license type, for use in filter > > and query operations. The name of the license should be > > limited to the characters [A-Za-z][A-Za-z0-9_-.]* as it is > > intended that only short, descriptive text be used as the > > identifier for the license payload, such as "copyright" or > > "CDDLv1". This value must be unique within a package. > > Why would the value of the license property be "copyright" ? > Licenses and copyright are different issues.
It's just history. SVr4 packages (or at least Sun's incarnation of them) don't have a concept of a license, but they do have a copyright file. That file has been abused to contain license information in many of the packages we ship, though many of them also just have a simple Sun copyright statement. Since we haven't done the work to identify the licenses for each package in the SVr4 -> pkg(5) transmogrification, we just give them dumb identifiers -- <pkgname>.copyright -- signifying that the contents come from the copyright file in the SVr4 package. Eventually, these should be better named (and some, like those in the /extra repo, are). I'm not sure whether we need to have a real copyright notice available through the manifest; I'd been assuming not. Danek _______________________________________________ pkg-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
