The ebuild currently has LICENSE="as-is" with most likely is wrong. The package's tarball doesn't contain any license information. Can you please sort out (possibly with upstream) under what terms this package can be distributed?
I asked for clarification of the issue from the authors by sending them email
Hi, Here is the licensing claim: Copyright (c) of deleted_to_trash by steven.xu@lba.ca This software is provided 'as-is', without any express or implied warranty. In no event will the authors be held liable for any damages arising from the use of this software. Permission is granted to anyone to use this software for any purpose, including commercial applications, and to alter it and redistribute it freely, subject to the following restrictions: 1. The origin of this software must not be misrepresented; you must not claim that you wrote the original software. If you use this software in a product, an acknowledgment in the product documentation would be appreciated but is not required. 2. Altered source versions must be plainly marked as such, and must not be misrepresented as being the original software.
CC from autor send to license@gentoo.org.
(In reply to comment #3) > CC from autor send to license@gentoo.org. That address doesn't exist. It's licenses@gentoo.org, note the trailing "s".
(In reply to comment #2) > Copyright (c) of deleted_to_trash by steven.xu@lba.ca > > This software is provided 'as-is', without any express or implied > warranty. In no event will the authors be held liable for any damages > arising from the use of this software. > > Permission is granted to anyone to use this software for any purpose, > including commercial applications, and to alter it and redistribute it > freely, subject to the following restrictions: > > 1. The origin of this software must not be misrepresented; you must not > claim that you wrote the original software. If you use this software > in a product, an acknowledgment in the product documentation would be > appreciated but is not required. > > 2. Altered source versions must be plainly marked as such, and must not be > misrepresented as being the original software. Thanks. This is just the ZLIB license, but with the 3rd clause missing (and I wonder if this omission is intentional): 3. This notice may not be removed or altered from any source distribution. @Licenses team: It doesn't make much of a difference, so I'd suggest that we mark the ebuild as "ZLIB".
(In reply to comment #5) > Thanks. This is just the ZLIB license, but with the 3rd clause missing (and > I wonder if this omission is intentional): > > 3. This notice may not be removed or altered from any source > distribution. > > @Licenses team: It doesn't make much of a difference, so I'd suggest that we > mark the ebuild as "ZLIB". Since we already have the author in contact, we could ask to clarify now and avoid having to do so at some later point. Just ask him if this is the same as ZLIB license and if not, what are the reasons for ommitting that clause.
(In reply to comment #6) > Since we already have the author in contact, we could ask to clarify now and > avoid having to do so at some later point. > > Just ask him if this is the same as ZLIB license and if not, what are the > reasons for ommitting that clause. I've sent another e-mail asking for clarification.
(In reply to comment #7) > I've sent another e-mail asking for clarification. No answer. I suggest that we go with ZLIB anyway; the missing 3rd clause is self-evident.
