I don't see any license, neither on the package's homepage, nor included in the tarball. The ebuild claims LICENSE="free-noncomm", where does this info come from?
No reply from maintainer. SRC_URI is dead, and the package is mirror restricted: >>> Downloading 'https://www.dropbox.com/s/7qh902qv2sxyp6p/SoulseekQt-2016-1-17-64bit.tgz' --2020-01-09 14:23:42-- https://www.dropbox.com/s/7qh902qv2sxyp6p/SoulseekQt-2016-1-17-64bit.tgz Resolving www.dropbox.com... 162.125.66.1, 2620:100:6022:1::a27d:4201 Connecting to www.dropbox.com|162.125.66.1|:443... connected. HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 301 Moved Permanently Location: /s/raw/7qh902qv2sxyp6p/SoulseekQt-2016-1-17-64bit.tgz [following] --2020-01-09 14:23:42-- https://www.dropbox.com/s/raw/7qh902qv2sxyp6p/SoulseekQt-2016-1-17-64bit.tgz Reusing existing connection to www.dropbox.com:443. HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 404 Not Found 2020-01-09 14:23:42 ERROR 404: Not Found. !!! Couldn't download 'SoulseekQt-2016-1-17-64bit.tgz'. Aborting. CCing treecleaners.
The bug has been referenced in the following commit(s): https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/commit/?id=2128858c1b274c7db6f95314febc8df91f50eb8f commit 2128858c1b274c7db6f95314febc8df91f50eb8f Author: Ulrich Müller <ulm@gentoo.org> AuthorDate: 2020-02-09 13:03:58 +0000 Commit: Ulrich Müller <ulm@gentoo.org> CommitDate: 2020-02-09 13:04:19 +0000 net-p2p/soulseek-qt: Change LICENSE to all-rights-reserved. Add bindist restriction. Bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/702334 Package-Manager: Portage-2.3.88, Repoman-2.3.20 Signed-off-by: Ulrich Müller <ulm@gentoo.org> net-p2p/soulseek-qt/soulseek-qt-20160117.ebuild | 7 +++---- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
I have updated LICENSE to "all-rights-reserved" which should settle the license issue. For the dead SRC_URI, there already is bug 694548 open, so I'm going to close this bug and CC treecleaners there. I've also looked at the new SoulseekQt-2018-1-30-64bit-appimage.tgz distfile distributed in appimage format. Again, it doesn't include any license. Even worse. it includes bundled binaries of libs that are under the LGPL, but including neither their sources, nor the text of the LGPL. This very much looks like a GPL violation to me.
