Re: [aur-general] License installation

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

Re: [aur-general] License installation

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 h

Re: [aur-general] License installation

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

Re: [aur-general] License installation

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 PKGBU

[aur-general] License installation

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) fro

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

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 publi

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

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.

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

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.

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

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. > >

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

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 - h

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

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

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

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

I am with Allan here. +1 for 'custom'. -- Hugo

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

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

[aur-general] license convention for public domain packages

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 p

Re: [aur-general] license

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 licen

Re: [aur-general] license

> 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

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

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

Re: [aur-general] license

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

Re: [aur-general] license

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

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/COPYIN

Re: [aur-general] license

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

[aur-general] license

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?