The ebuild cite this licenses: 9base BSD-4 MIT LGPL-2.1 BigelowHolmes but for what I see the licenses involved are: MIT Apache-2.0 (for a bash script) BigelowHolmes (for some fonts see https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=779214 for the list) pulic domain (for some fonts) BitstreamVera (for the dejavu font) BZIP2 (for bzip2) also this license that I can't classify * Copyright (C) 1991-2, RSA Data Security, Inc. Created 1991. All * rights reserved. * * License to copy and use this software is granted provided that it * is identified as the "RSA Data Security, Inc. MD5 Message-Digest * Algorithm" in all material mentioning or referencing this software * or this function. * * License is also granted to make and use derivative works provided * that such works are identified as "derived from the RSA Data * Security, Inc. MD5 Message-Digest Algorithm" in all material * mentioning or referencing the derived work. * * RSA Data Security, Inc. makes no representations concerning either * the merchantability of this software or the suitability of this * software forany particular purpose. It is provided "as is" * without express or implied warranty of any kind. * These notices must be retained in any copies of any part of this * documentation and/or software. I see no traces of BSD-4 or LGPL-2.1 licenses and also I think that the 9base is redundant if we list all the licenses individually
I think this package is essentially maintainer-needed, blueness hasn't touched it since 2016, and it seen drive-by PullRequests instead (maybe you'd like handle this yourself?)
(In reply to Alessandro Barbieri from comment #0) > The ebuild cite this licenses: 9base BSD-4 MIT LGPL-2.1 BigelowHolmes > but for what I see the licenses involved are: > > MIT > Apache-2.0 (for a bash script) > BigelowHolmes (for some fonts see > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=779214 for the list) > pulic domain (for some fonts) > BitstreamVera (for the dejavu font) > BZIP2 (for bzip2) Also: 9base, BSD-2, BSD, HPND, 9wm Does the ebuild actually install bzip2 and the bash script? > also this license that I can't classify > > [...] That's RSA. > I see no traces of BSD-4 or LGPL-2.1 licenses LGPL-2.1+ is used in src/libthread/. I don't see BSD-4 either. > and also I think that the 9base is redundant if we list all the licenses > individually 9base is basically the "Lucent Public License Version 1.02" with some exceptions. I don't think that it is covered by anything else.
I see, bumping to the latest snapshot will get rid of the lucent public license.
(In reply to Alessandro Barbieri from comment #3) > I see, bumping to the latest snapshot will get rid of the lucent public > license. Indeed, above I was referring to the 0_pre20200526 snapshot.
The bug has been referenced in the following commit(s): https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/commit/?id=a8bdd5209a2d2c03b4d20ee84f3568856071b0d6 commit a8bdd5209a2d2c03b4d20ee84f3568856071b0d6 Author: Alessandro Barbieri <lssndrbarbieri@gmail.com> AuthorDate: 2021-05-25 16:52:51 +0000 Commit: Anthony G. Basile <blueness@gentoo.org> CommitDate: 2021-09-09 13:26:40 +0000 dev-util/plan9port: new snapshot non-free fonts under useflag remove live ebuild remove old snapshot Bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/791742 Closes: https://bugs.gentoo.org/779214 Signed-off-by: Alessandro Barbieri <lssndrbarbieri@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Anthony G. Basile <blueness@gentoo.org> dev-util/plan9port/Manifest | 2 +- .../plan9port/files/plan9port-noexecstack.patch | 35 ------ dev-util/plan9port/metadata.xml | 3 + ...00526.ebuild => plan9port-0_pre20210321.ebuild} | 32 ++++-- dev-util/plan9port/plan9port-9999.ebuild | 126 --------------------- 5 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 172 deletions(-)
Looks like this has been fixed. Please reopen if not.
