| Summary: | JWasm licence (OSWPL-1.0 based). What license_groups should i add it to? | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Gentoo Linux | Reporter: | Sergei Trofimovich (RETIRED) <slyfox> |
| Component: | [OLD] Unspecified | Assignee: | Licenses team <licenses> |
| Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | ||
| Severity: | normal | ||
| Priority: | Normal | ||
| Version: | unspecified | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- | |
| Bug Depends on: | |||
| Bug Blocks: | 431706 | ||
| Attachments: | jwasm-2.10-License.txt | ||
> I have 3 major questions: > - How should i names it? JWasm or OSWPL-1.0? We should follow the OSI and SPDX naming and call it "Watcom-1.0": http://opensource.org/licenses/Watcom-1.0 http://spdx.org/licenses/Watcom-1.0 > - What license_groups should I include them besides OSI-APPROVED It's interesting that the FSF explicitly lists this license as non-free: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#Watcom So, it can be added to the OSI-APPROVED group only. > - Should I add PROPERTIES=interactive to ebuild? (license says about > "click-approve" if possible) No, this would only be annoying for the user. The license says that it should be either click-wrap or alternatively a statement that any use constitutes acceptance of the license. The first paragraph (in all-caps) is such a statement, so that should be enough. (In reply to comment #1) > > I have 3 major questions: > > - How should i names it? JWasm or OSWPL-1.0? > > We should follow the OSI and SPDX naming and call it "Watcom-1.0": > http://opensource.org/licenses/Watcom-1.0 > http://spdx.org/licenses/Watcom-1.0 > > > - What license_groups should I include them besides OSI-APPROVED > > It's interesting that the FSF explicitly lists this license as non-free: > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#Watcom > > So, it can be added to the OSI-APPROVED group only. > > > - Should I add PROPERTIES=interactive to ebuild? (license says about > > "click-approve" if possible) > > No, this would only be annoying for the user. The license says that it > should be either click-wrap or alternatively a statement that any use > constitutes acceptance of the license. The first paragraph (in all-caps) is > such a statement, so that should be enough. Committed as Watcom-1.0 only in OSI-APPROVED group. Thanks! |
Created attachment 348424 [details] jwasm-2.10-License.txt $SUBJ I have 3 major questions: - How should i names it? JWasm or OSWPL-1.0? - What license_groups should I include them besides OSI-APPROVED - Should I add PROPERTIES=interactive to ebuild? (license says about "click-approve" if possible) Attaches license from JWasm tarball. Thanks!