The ebuild claims LICENSE="free-noncomm", but neither in the tarball nor on the former homepage <http://web.archive.org/web/20040330202652/http://dune.s31.pl/> I can find any license at all. Also both HOMEPAGE and SRC_URI no longer exist.
What's your point. The files are mirrored, the homepage is "nice to have" but not interesting if it's missing and free-noncomm is probably as good as any.
The package has no license at all, Dune is probably still copyrighted, so it's even doubtful if we are allowed to redistribute this package at all. And no, just adding something random as LICENSE is not o.k.
They're quotes. It's not a license issue.
Similar issue for fortune-mod-discworld, GPL-2 is plain wrong. README says: "The entire text is copyrighted by the rightful owners."
punted. Thanks for nothing Ulrich.
*sigh* I didn't ask for removal of these packages. We should really go for a pragmatic solution here. And sorry for being obnoxious about it, but if our LICENSE strings don't reflect reality, then we can punt the whole ACCEPT_LICENSE feature. There are even more in fortune-mod-* affected by this, i.e. collections of short quotes from copyrighted material. @licenses: Could we add some license like "fair-use" (as in <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fair_use>) for such packages?
fair use isn't a license. It's not even a concept that is the same between countries.
(In reply to comment #7) > fair use isn't a license. It's not even a concept that is the same between > countries. So is "public-domain", but we have it too.
So I guess your point is that all the packages that claim public-domain as the license need "fixing" as well.
(In reply to comment #9) > So I guess your point is that all the packages that claim public-domain as > the license need "fixing" as well. On the contrary: We have "public-domain", so if we think that these collections of quotations are acceptable, then we could as well have something describing them, even if it's not a license in the strict sense. (Maybe RESTRICT="mirror" would also be wise in these cases.) My only intention when filing this bug was that LICENSE should reflect the real license of the package. We shouldn't claim "free-noncomm" or "GPL-2" if it isn't true, otherwise the ACCEPT_LICENSE feature makes no sense.
*** Bug 302858 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
mr bones' point is simple: he doesnt care about the licensing. neither do i. if you really want these things to be exact, just make the damned change yourself. it's much less of a hassle for us to simply punt this than to go back and forth over crap we absolutely dont care about.
I've restored fortune-mod-{dune,discworld}. Just do what you want, I won't report games issues any more, in order not to be insulted by you.
(In reply to comment #13) > I've restored fortune-mod-{dune,discworld}. > > Just do what you want, I won't report games issues any more, in order not to be > insulted by you. > Mine purpose in bug #302858 was to understand why fortune-mod-dune was removed, I didn't know about license issues discussed here and I didn't intend to complain about it, I only wanted to know what happened, and now I know it. I don't think that gentoo's bugzilla is the appropriate place to insult someone else and I don't think that one developer should decide about a package due to insults, the point is to understand what's the right thing to do, if the package isn't appropriate due to its license issues or ambiguity to be in portage it shouldn't be in portage, also if someone else want this package. I'm really sorry about what happend also because I opened the bug and the discussion as well.
Marcello: You haven't done anything wrong, so there's no need for you to justify yourself. Thank you for reporting bug 302858.
i'm being real: some people care about licensing, but those people arent us. if you do, make whatever changes to the value of LICENSE=... in games ebuilds you feel like.
This isn't exactly "fixed", therefore reopening.
# Ulrich Müller <ulm@gentoo.org> (2020-02-04) # No license; copyright status unclear. # "The entire text is copyrighted by the rightful owners." # Masked for removal in 30 days. Bugs #302722, #634288. games-misc/fortune-mod-discworld games-misc/fortune-mod-hitchhiker games-misc/fortune-mod-simpsons-chalkboard games-misc/fortune-mod-starwars # Ulrich Müller <ulm@gentoo.org> (2020-02-04) # No license; copyright status unclear. # HOMEPAGE and SRC_URI are gone. # Masked for removal in 30 days. Bugs #302722, #634288, #703714. games-misc/fortune-mod-dune
The bug has been closed via the following commit(s): https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/commit/?id=a12b2faed545daa3f495af2e2807e60af2580227 commit a12b2faed545daa3f495af2e2807e60af2580227 Author: Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> AuthorDate: 2020-03-04 16:52:14 +0000 Commit: Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> CommitDate: 2020-03-04 16:52:14 +0000 games-misc/fortune-mod-discworld: Remove last-rited pkg Closes: https://bugs.gentoo.org/302722 Signed-off-by: Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> games-misc/fortune-mod-discworld/Manifest | 1 - .../fortune-mod-discworld-0.1.ebuild | 23 ---------------------- games-misc/fortune-mod-discworld/metadata.xml | 8 -------- profiles/package.mask | 1 - 4 files changed, 33 deletions(-)
