Re: [aur-general] License installation

[rafael ff1]

Got it! Thanks all!

2011/2/7 Thomas S Hatch 

> On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 11:20 PM, rafael ff1  wrote:
>
> > Thanks for the reply, Kaiting. I actually understand what license is for
> > each packages. My question is if, in the PKGBUILD, I should set a
> > folder/symlink for each package in /usr/share/licenses/$pkgname
> >
> > For example: package is LGPL. I have "license" package installed. Should
> I
> > symilink from common/LGPL folder to ${pkgname} ? Or do nothing - and
> leave
> > as it is?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 2011/2/7 Kaiting Chen 
> >
> > > On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 11:50 PM, rafael ff1 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I read Licenses  and
> > > > PKGBUILDpages at
> > > > Archwiki and I've been wondering: case a software's license is one
> > > > the common ones (ex: GPL), if the PKGBUILD should do some kind of
> > > reference
> > > > (symlink) from /usr/share/licenses/common/GPL/ to
> > > > /usr/share/licenses/${pkgname}/ or.. do nothing, maybe?
> > > >
> > >
> > > `pacman -Qi $pkgname | grep Licenses` --Kaiting.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Kiwis and Limes: http://kaitocracy.blogspot.com/
> > >
> >
>
> For common licences that already exist, you don't need to make a symlink in
> the package, the licence files already exist on the machine, and the
> correct
> licence in the PKGBUILD is enough.
>
> You only really need to include the licence if it is not one
> of these installed in the licences directory.
>

Re: [aur-general] License installation

[Thomas S Hatch]

On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 11:20 PM, rafael ff1  wrote:

> Thanks for the reply, Kaiting. I actually understand what license is for
> each packages. My question is if, in the PKGBUILD, I should set a
> folder/symlink for each package in /usr/share/licenses/$pkgname
>
> For example: package is LGPL. I have "license" package installed. Should I
> symilink from common/LGPL folder to ${pkgname} ? Or do nothing - and leave
> as it is?
>
>
>
>
> 2011/2/7 Kaiting Chen 
>
> > On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 11:50 PM, rafael ff1 
> wrote:
> >
> > > I read Licenses  and
> > > PKGBUILDpages at
> > > Archwiki and I've been wondering: case a software's license is one
> > > the common ones (ex: GPL), if the PKGBUILD should do some kind of
> > reference
> > > (symlink) from /usr/share/licenses/common/GPL/ to
> > > /usr/share/licenses/${pkgname}/ or.. do nothing, maybe?
> > >
> >
> > `pacman -Qi $pkgname | grep Licenses` --Kaiting.
> >
> > --
> > Kiwis and Limes: http://kaitocracy.blogspot.com/
> >
>

For common licences that already exist, you don't need to make a symlink in
the package, the licence files already exist on the machine, and the correct
licence in the PKGBUILD is enough.

You only really need to include the licence if it is not one
of these installed in the licences directory.

Re: [aur-general] License installation

[rafael ff1]

Thanks for the reply, Kaiting. I actually understand what license is for
each packages. My question is if, in the PKGBUILD, I should set a
folder/symlink for each package in /usr/share/licenses/$pkgname

For example: package is LGPL. I have "license" package installed. Should I
symilink from common/LGPL folder to ${pkgname} ? Or do nothing - and leave
as it is?




2011/2/7 Kaiting Chen 

> On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 11:50 PM, rafael ff1  wrote:
>
> > I read Licenses  and
> > PKGBUILDpages at
> > Archwiki and I've been wondering: case a software's license is one
> > the common ones (ex: GPL), if the PKGBUILD should do some kind of
> reference
> > (symlink) from /usr/share/licenses/common/GPL/ to
> > /usr/share/licenses/${pkgname}/ or.. do nothing, maybe?
> >
>
> `pacman -Qi $pkgname | grep Licenses` --Kaiting.
>
> --
> Kiwis and Limes: http://kaitocracy.blogspot.com/
>

Re: [aur-general] License installation

[Kaiting Chen]

On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 11:50 PM, rafael ff1  wrote:

> I read Licenses  and
> PKGBUILDpages at
> Archwiki and I've been wondering: case a software's license is one
> the common ones (ex: GPL), if the PKGBUILD should do some kind of reference
> (symlink) from /usr/share/licenses/common/GPL/ to
> /usr/share/licenses/${pkgname}/ or.. do nothing, maybe?
>

`pacman -Qi $pkgname | grep Licenses` --Kaiting.

-- 
Kiwis and Limes: http://kaitocracy.blogspot.com/

[aur-general] License installation

[rafael ff1]

Hi there.

I read Licenses  and
PKGBUILDpages at
Archwiki and I've been wondering: case a software's license is one
the common ones (ex: GPL), if the PKGBUILD should do some kind of reference
(symlink) from /usr/share/licenses/common/GPL/ to
/usr/share/licenses/${pkgname}/ or.. do nothing, maybe?

Thanks

Re: [aur-general] license convention for public domain packages

[Stefan Husmann]

Aaron Griffin schrieb:

On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 1:59 PM, Paulo Matias wrote:

I'd not agree here. Isn't public domain exactly the absence of a
license? When something is public domain you have no obligations at
all. Even citing the author's name isn't required. You can do what you
want with a public domain work.

So I can't see why should we require to ship a different public domain
declaration for each public domain package. I think something like
'none' or 'PD' without the obligation to install anything to
/usr/share/licenses would be the best way to go here.


This is very very not true. There is no such thing as "public domain".
Any code I write, without otherwise noting it, is copyrighted to me in
the US and copying of it is not allowed under standard copyright laws
unless I explicitly say otherwise. That's the funny thing - copyright
actually protects the original author _by default_. Even more to the
point, there is no way to willfully give up implicit rules such as
this across the globe.

Check out the FAQ here: http://sam.zoy.org/wtfpl/


Hello,

sorry for being so late in this discussion, but I had a short exchange of 
comments with the maintainer of the dataplot package. 
(see http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=27519) He suggested that a 
short explanation should be added to the packaging guidelines wiki concerning 
handling of programs declared as public domain.


What would be necessary for this? Do we have an agreement here?

BTW, in Germany, where a term like "public domain" does not exist, if you are  
the author of an article and give erveryone the permission to publish it, the
publisher nevertheless has the duty to add your name as the author to the 
article and has to ask you if he may do so. 


Regards Stefan

Re: [aur-general] license convention for public domain packages

[Paulo Matias]

On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 4:06 PM, Aaron Griffin wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 1:59 PM, Paulo Matias wrote:
>> I'd not agree here. Isn't public domain exactly the absence of a
>> license? When something is public domain you have no obligations at
>> all. Even citing the author's name isn't required. You can do what you
>> want with a public domain work.
>>
>> So I can't see why should we require to ship a different public domain
>> declaration for each public domain package. I think something like
>> 'none' or 'PD' without the obligation to install anything to
>> /usr/share/licenses would be the best way to go here.
>
> This is very very not true. There is no such thing as "public domain".
> Any code I write, without otherwise noting it, is copyrighted to me in
> the US and copying of it is not allowed under standard copyright laws
> unless I explicitly say otherwise. That's the funny thing - copyright
> actually protects the original author _by default_. Even more to the
> point, there is no way to willfully give up implicit rules such as
> this across the globe.
>
> Check out the FAQ here: http://sam.zoy.org/wtfpl/
>

Hm, really I didn't expressed correctly what I meant when I said
"absence of license". By that I meant the "absence of a document
detailing what you can do and what you can't do" (because there are no
imposed restrictions in the public domain work), not the "absence of a
declaration saying the work is public domain".

Said that, by reading the FAQ link I agree that, as not all
jurisdictions recognize public domain, including a /usr/share/licenses
file is really a good practice if the software's author writes
something like "If you are using SQLite in a jurisdiction that does
not recognize the public domain, [...]" (example from the sqlite3
package). So the user may know which license to follow if her
jurisdiction doesn't recognize the public domain.

But if the author wasn't cautious to write something like that, there
is nothing else to do. If the author only puts a declaration "this
work is in the public domain", all we would be able to do is to mark
the package as public domain. There is no license at all involved in
this case.


Best regards,

Paulo Matias

Re: [aur-general] license convention for public domain packages

[Aaron Griffin]

On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 2:06 PM, Aaron Griffin wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 1:59 PM, Paulo Matias wrote:
>> I'd not agree here. Isn't public domain exactly the absence of a
>> license? When something is public domain you have no obligations at
>> all. Even citing the author's name isn't required. You can do what you
>> want with a public domain work.
>>
>> So I can't see why should we require to ship a different public domain
>> declaration for each public domain package. I think something like
>> 'none' or 'PD' without the obligation to install anything to
>> /usr/share/licenses would be the best way to go here.
>
> This is very very not true. There is no such thing as "public domain".
> Any code I write, without otherwise noting it, is copyrighted to me in
> the US and copying of it is not allowed under standard copyright laws
> unless I explicitly say otherwise. That's the funny thing - copyright
> actually protects the original author _by default_. Even more to the
> point, there is no way to willfully give up implicit rules such as
> this across the globe.
>
> Check out the FAQ here: http://sam.zoy.org/wtfpl/

More complete info on wikipedia, as always:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain#No_legal_restriction_on_use

Re: [aur-general] license convention for public domain packages

[Aaron Griffin]

On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 1:59 PM, Paulo Matias wrote:
> I'd not agree here. Isn't public domain exactly the absence of a
> license? When something is public domain you have no obligations at
> all. Even citing the author's name isn't required. You can do what you
> want with a public domain work.
>
> So I can't see why should we require to ship a different public domain
> declaration for each public domain package. I think something like
> 'none' or 'PD' without the obligation to install anything to
> /usr/share/licenses would be the best way to go here.

This is very very not true. There is no such thing as "public domain".
Any code I write, without otherwise noting it, is copyrighted to me in
the US and copying of it is not allowed under standard copyright laws
unless I explicitly say otherwise. That's the funny thing - copyright
actually protects the original author _by default_. Even more to the
point, there is no way to willfully give up implicit rules such as
this across the globe.

Check out the FAQ here: http://sam.zoy.org/wtfpl/

Re: [aur-general] license convention for public domain packages

[Marcelo Cavalcante]

Agree...
Think the same. The name explains itself.
Public Domain should be public.

---

-  °v°   Marcelo Cavalcante Rocha / Kalib
- /(_)\  Usuário Linux #407564 / Usuário Asterisk #1148
-  ^ ^   GNU-Linux - Livre, Poderoso e Seguro
- TUX-CE Member - www.tux-ce.org
- Archlinux-br Developer Team - http://archlinux-br.org
- http://www.marcelocavalcante.net


On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 3:59 PM, Paulo Matias wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 3:37 PM, Daenyth 
> Blank>
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 13:02, Hugo Doria wrote:
> >> I am with Allan here.
> >> +1 for 'custom'.
> > +2
> >
>
> I'd not agree here. Isn't public domain exactly the absence of a
> license? When something is public domain you have no obligations at
> all. Even citing the author's name isn't required. You can do what you
> want with a public domain work.
>
> So I can't see why should we require to ship a different public domain
> declaration for each public domain package. I think something like
> 'none' or 'PD' without the obligation to install anything to
> /usr/share/licenses would be the best way to go here.
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Paulo Matias
>

Re: [aur-general] license convention for public domain packages

[Paulo Matias]

On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 3:37 PM, Daenyth Blank wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 13:02, Hugo Doria wrote:
>> I am with Allan here.
>> +1 for 'custom'.
> +2
>

I'd not agree here. Isn't public domain exactly the absence of a
license? When something is public domain you have no obligations at
all. Even citing the author's name isn't required. You can do what you
want with a public domain work.

So I can't see why should we require to ship a different public domain
declaration for each public domain package. I think something like
'none' or 'PD' without the obligation to install anything to
/usr/share/licenses would be the best way to go here.


Best regards,

Paulo Matias

Re: [aur-general] license convention for public domain packages

[Daenyth Blank]

On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 13:02, Hugo Doria wrote:
> I am with Allan here.
> +1 for 'custom'.
+2

Re: [aur-general] license convention for public domain packages

[Hugo Doria]

I am with Allan here.

+1 for 'custom'.

-- Hugo

Re: [aur-general] license convention for public domain packages

[Allan McRae]

Abhishek Dasgupta wrote:

There are widely varying methods for specifying the license of a
public domain package in Arch Linux. We should standardise and
use one of them. Some packages use
- 'Public Domain' (unclutter, python-webpy)
- 'PD' (ttf-mph-2b-damase)
- I think some packages might also be using 'none'. I saw one
  package using 'custom:public' (shuffle)

Also, there is the question of whether we should have public domain
declarations for each package in /usr/share/licenses or put a public
domain declaration in /usr/share/licenses/common and refer to that.
  


I think it should just be 'custom'.  There is no single public domain 
license so they also should be included in /usr/share/license/$pkgname.


Allan

[aur-general] license convention for public domain packages

[Abhishek Dasgupta]

There are widely varying methods for specifying the license of a
public domain package in Arch Linux. We should standardise and
use one of them. Some packages use
- 'Public Domain' (unclutter, python-webpy)
- 'PD' (ttf-mph-2b-damase)
- I think some packages might also be using 'none'. I saw one
  package using 'custom:public' (shuffle)

Also, there is the question of whether we should have public domain
declarations for each package in /usr/share/licenses or put a public
domain declaration in /usr/share/licenses/common and refer to that.

-- 
Abhishek

Re: [aur-general] license

[Gerardo Exequiel Pozzi]

Ray Rashif wrote:
> I do not see BSD in /usr/share/licenses/common and only two packages out of
> 400+ on my system provide it. Is that intentional? Or is that because
> they've been installed with names like "COPYING"?
>
>   
BSD licenseS are a special case, is more common to call "BSD style
license" rather than "The BSD license" ;) Many modifications are applied
to it in differents software. For more information and history see here [#1]

[#1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses

-- 
Gerardo Exequiel Pozzi ( djgera )
http://www.djgera.com.ar
KeyID: 0x1B8C330D
Key fingerprint = 0CAA D5D4 CD85 4434 A219  76ED 39AB 221B 1B8C 330D

Re: [aur-general] license

[Ray Rashif]

> I don't think it matters.
>
> Also, please leave some context from previous emails when you reply.
>
> Allan
>


Ahh alright.

Sorry, lazy habit =p

Re: [aur-general] license

[Allan McRae]

Ray Rashif wrote:

Shouldn't it be encouraged to at least install it as
/usr/share/licenses/$pkgname/BSD?

  


I don't think it matters.

Also, please leave some context from previous emails when you reply.

Allan

Re: [aur-general] license

[Ray Rashif]

Shouldn't it be encouraged to at least install it as
/usr/share/licenses/$pkgname/BSD?

Re: [aur-general] license

[Allan McRae]

Ray Rashif wrote:

I do not see BSD in /usr/share/licenses/common and only two packages out of
400+ on my system provide it. Is that intentional? Or is that because
they've been installed with names like "COPYING"?
  


BSD licenses are not all the same (they include a copyright notice at 
the top from a vague memory).  Because of this, we can not provide a 
"standard" version.  That is why packages with a BSD license always 
should install the license to /usr/share/licenses/$pkgname/


Allan

Re: [aur-general] license

[Ray Rashif]

I do not see BSD in /usr/share/licenses/common and only two packages out of
400+ on my system provide it. Is that intentional? Or is that because
they've been installed with names like "COPYING"?

Re: [aur-general] license

[Allan McRae]

nathan owe. wrote:

I was reading on the Arch WIKI about licencing in AUR, My package has
the BSD license. it says to copy the license
to /usr/share/licenses/$pkgname/COPYING how do i do that in the
PKGBUILD?
  


Something like:

install -Dm644 COPYING ${pkgdir}/usr/share/licenses/$pkgname/COPYING

You can always look at other PKGBUILDs the ABS tree to get ideas on how 
things should be done.


Allan

Re: [aur-general] license

[corvolino]

license=('BSD')
add this in pkgbuild.


2009/6/7 nathan owe. 

> I was reading on the Arch WIKI about licencing in AUR, My package has
> the BSD license. it says to copy the license
> to /usr/share/licenses/$pkgname/COPYING how do i do that in the
> PKGBUILD?
>



-- 
corvolino ~
Linux User #459152
Blog - http://corvolinopunk.wordpress.com
Archlinux-br Developer Team

[aur-general] license

[nathan owe.]

I was reading on the Arch WIKI about licencing in AUR, My package has
the BSD license. it says to copy the license
to /usr/share/licenses/$pkgname/COPYING how do i do that in the
PKGBUILD?