The ebuild claims LICENSE="as-is" which doesn't seem to be right. I cannot find any distribution terms, neither in the various tarballs nor on the package's homepage. Can you please sort out (possibly with upstream) under what terms this package can be distributed? Are we even allowed to redistribute the distfiles at all?
(In reply to comment #0) > The ebuild claims LICENSE="as-is" which doesn't seem to be right. I cannot > find any distribution terms, neither in the various tarballs nor on the > package's homepage. > > Can you please sort out (possibly with upstream) under what terms this > package can be distributed? Are we even allowed to redistribute the > distfiles at all? I've only added pidgin-smileys a while ago. They're indeed licensed GPL not as-is: http://gnome-look.org/content/show.php?content=62566 I'll need check the rest.
Any news?
(In reply to comment #2) > Any news? Sorry this bug fell out of my radar. Unfortunately I cannot provide any solution for the current situation. Most of the upstream sites are no longer there. Occasional license remarks for individual packages seems to be "hand written" and scarce. As I've said earlier I'm only interested having penguin-smileys. If you'd like to mask and punt the others I won't oppose.
(In reply to comment #3) > Unfortunately I cannot provide any solution for the current situation. Most > of the upstream sites are no longer there. Occasional license remarks for > individual packages seems to be "hand written" and scarce. Some have rather restrictive terms, e.g. the kolobok theme forbids any repackaging and redistribution. > As I've said earlier I'm only interested having penguin-smileys. If you'd > like to mask and punt the others I won't oppose. That would probably be the cleanest solution. Should it be kept under the same name, or do you want to split the penguins off to a new package like x11-themes/pidgin-penguins-smileys?
(In reply to comment #4) > (In reply to comment #3) > > Unfortunately I cannot provide any solution for the current situation. Most > > of the upstream sites are no longer there. Occasional license remarks for > > individual packages seems to be "hand written" and scarce. > > Some have rather restrictive terms, e.g. the kolobok theme forbids any > repackaging and redistribution. > > > As I've said earlier I'm only interested having penguin-smileys. If you'd > > like to mask and punt the others I won't oppose. > > That would probably be the cleanest solution. Should it be kept under the > same name, or do you want to split the penguins off to a new package like > x11-themes/pidgin-penguins-smileys? The latter, x11-themes/pidgin-penguins-smileys sounds great.
+*pidgin-penguins-smileys-1.0 (01 May 2013) + + 01 May 2013; Kacper Kowalik <xarthisius@gentoo.org> +metadata.xml, + +pidgin-penguins-smileys-1.0.ebuild: + Initial import wrt #452420
+ 01 May 2013; Kacper Kowalik <xarthisius@gentoo.org> package.mask: + x11-themes/pidgin-smileys removal due to licensing issue wrt #452420
If there is no license information, then we must assume that there are no rights granted. Removing it because of that does not make any sense. You can turn on fetch restriction which means we do NOT redistribute it and even hardmask it.
(In reply to comment #8) > If there is no license information, then we must assume that there are no > rights granted. > > Removing it because of that does not make any sense. You can turn on fetch > restriction which means we do NOT redistribute it and even hardmask it. Most of those themes no longer have upstream fetchable sources. They exist only on gentoo mirrors
Dropped
