Need to manage the licensing aspects of the newly added notecase-pro. Reproducible: Always Notecase Pro is a commercial closed-source software with free Lite/Trial modes. ssuominen instructs "the sentence should be put into it's own file in licenses/ and referred in the ebuild, adding the email header as the file header where it's from, date/time. "Miroslav Rajcic" <support@virtual-sky.com>; Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2011 07:46:25 +0100 you propably need to ask infra/mirror-admins to punt the package from our mirrors too. you have to determine which version of aspell/gtkspell/wxsqlite3/lua it has bundled, and add those licenses to the LICENSE field too + the mail sentence you got from them in it's own file to licenses/ should copy that text (from http://virtual-sky.com/license.php) and upload into licenses/ as notecase-pro adding LICENSE="notecase-pro" in addition to the checking of the bundled other licenses. RESTRICT="mirror"
Created attachment 292205 [details] aspell-0.60.6-lcense.txt
Created attachment 292207 [details] gtkspell.txt
Created attachment 292209 [details] lua.txt
Created attachment 292211 [details] wxsqlite3.txt
Attachment 292209 [details] and attachment 292211 [details] are identical -- is the lua one missing by accident?
to summarize, then: LICENSE="notecase-pro LGPL-2.1 GPL-2 MIT wxWinLL-3.1 RSA-MD5" (assuming lua is released under the MIT license)
Created attachment 292225 [details] lua2.txt sadly, yes, repeated one, despite trying to not get them mixed. Can but try. lua come in package called libhttpd.zip
Created attachment 292309 [details] licensing file
Created attachment 292311 [details, diff] ebuild patch
Time to remove the package since it's been in tree with 'illegal' licensing info for months now. CCing treecleaners for possible removal.
(In reply to comment #10) > Time to remove the package since it's been in tree with 'illegal' licensing > info for months now. CCing treecleaners for possible removal. Did I miss the thread where this was dubbed illegal? -A
(In reply to comment #11) > (In reply to comment #10) > > Time to remove the package since it's been in tree with 'illegal' licensing > > info for months now. CCing treecleaners for possible removal. > > Did I miss the thread where this was dubbed illegal? > > -A Nope, but there are multiple points we are infrigning right now. Just by minute look and, The upstream license (which we don't ship at all) says: You may not: 1) Use the Software for purposes other than as authorized in this License Agreement or knowingly permit anyone else to do so ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Leaving it in current state would be knowingly permitting users to use, distribute, etc. on the false 'as-is' license listed in the ebuild now In any case, the maintainer (both proxy and proxied) were told before the package even hit Portage the license status is unclear and it was still committed. Was pretty unhappy about that, and now after 3 months later... This is going lastrites unless fixed today
(In reply to comment #12) > Leaving it in current state would be knowingly permitting users to use, > distribute, etc. on the false 'as-is' license listed in the ebuild now Keep in mind that Gentoo isn't distributing anything that is copyrighted at all, and is not a party to the license. At worst we are spreading misinformation regarding the license of somebody else's product - similar to posting on the website that "Microsoft Windows is GPL software." This does need to be fixed quickly. I'd suggest at the very least committing the patch that has already been proposed. I'm not sure how popular this package is - normally I wouldn't be a big fan of pulling something without a consensus (though it should have had consensus before it was added). If we were mirroring the file then I would be advising that immediate action be taken to stop that, but this is not the case.
Per discussion in the trustee's meeting the trustees are recommending that this package be masked for removal immediately following the normal tree-cleaning process. The maintainer is welcome to fix the LICENSE, follow the normal gentoo-dev procedures for a new license, and unmask. However, it doesn't make sense to keep this around if it isn't even maintained. The package cannot be unmasked in its present state for legal reasons.
from me, feel free to clean it. The licensing thing was a headache from the outset
Gone
