Hi,
> Replying on the general mailing list since the dev list is staff only.
tried to reply to arch-dev-public earlier, that explains why it didn’t work.
> Personally I think having incomplete SPDX identifier in the pacman
> package is not in itself a license violation as long as the individual
> license files are shipped with the package. Although it would certainly
> be nice for tooling if the package information is complete too.
I think having the licenses of all dependencies in the license field is
(1) a lot of clutter and (2) not what I would expect.
If I want to check under which license linux is released, the result
$ pacman -Si linux
...
Licenses : GPL-2.0-only
...
is a lot more useful (to me) than
$ pacman -Si linux-lts
...
Licenses : Apache-2.0 OR MIT BSD-2-Clause OR GPL-2.0-or-later
BSD-3-Clause BSD-3-Clause OR GPL-2.0-only
BSD-3-Clause OR GPL-2.0-or-later BSD-3-Clause-Clear
GPL-1.0-or-later GPL-1.0-or-later OR BSD-3-Clause
GPL-2.0-only GPL-2.0-only OR Apache-2.0
GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-3-Clause
GPL-2.0-only OR CDDL-1.0 GPL-2.0-only OR Linux-OpenIB
GPL-2.0-only OR MIT GPL-2.0-only OR MPL-1.1
GPL-2.0-only OR X11 GPL-2.0-only WITH Linux-syscall-note
GPL-2.0-or-later GPL-2.0-or-later OR BSD-2-Clause
GPL-2.0-or-later OR BSD-3-Clause GPL-2.0-or-later OR MIT
GPL-2.0-or-later OR X11
GPL-2.0-or-later WITH GCC-exception-2.0 ISC
LGPL-2.0-or-later LGPL-2.1-only
LGPL-2.1-only OR BSD-2-Clause LGPL-2.1-or-later MIT
MPL-1.1 X11 Zlib
...
(though I’m not sure why they differ)
Best regards,
tippfehlr
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
