Todd,
Can you run another status report on the Licensing?
Also, please run another report showing just those packages (and owners) who are License: Artistic (not GPL* or Artistic), just Artistic.
Thanks,
~spot
Tom spot Callaway wrote:
Can you run another status report on the Licensing?
Attached are reports by owner and package. The package report now also lists the owner.
The executive summary for the impatient:
Invalid licenses: 2044 out of 4746 (43.07%) [as of 2007-09-21 17:39 UTC]
Progress has slowed a bit in the past few weeks. It's soon time for another nag mail to kick in another round of fixes and/or time to send mail directly to owners and co-maintainers. :)
Also, please run another report showing just those packages (and owners) who are License: Artistic (not GPL* or Artistic), just Artistic.
I think there are still some package listed here that needn't be. Is "GPLv2+ or Artistic" valid? I believe you said it was and would add it to the wiki, but it is not there and thus still not in the rpmlint config (which I'm using as the source for valid licenses, updated to match wiki rev 91).
The packages affected are:
perl perl-Jcode perl-Unicode-Map perl-Unicode-Map8 perl-Unicode-MapUTF8 perl-Unicode-String procmail
GPLv2+ or Artistic is valid for perl and procmail AFAIK, but it is likely a copy/paste error for the others I believe.
The list of packages with License tags matching "^Artistic$" is attached. This regex misses a number of perl packages with a license of "Artistic or GPL." Those packages likely just need to change the license to "GPL+ or Artistic", assuming they are licensed the same as Perl.
There are a couple of others missed by this which are caught if the trailing $ is removed from the regex:
pv (jhrozek): "Artistic (modified)"
The homepage for pv (http://www.ivarch.com/programs/pv.shtml) has this news entry:
1.0.1 - 4 August 2007 [1.0.1 notes] * licensing change from Artistic to Artistic 2.0
yap (gemi): "Artistic/LGPL"
The yap tarball's README says the license is Artistic 2, and that matches what is included in the Artistic file. Some parts are also available as LGPL. I didn't look closely to see if any version is specified.
I haven't looked at many of the Artistic licensed packages closely, but I do recall checking the cpan2rpm package. The license is simply wrong (and has been for years, unfortunately). It is GPLv2+. See:
http://search.cpan.org/src/ECALDER/cpan2rpm-2.028/LICENSE http://search.cpan.org/dist/cpan2rpm/cpan2rpm#LICENCE_AND_COPYRIGHT
(I think someone got confused because the default license tag created in spec files generated by cpan2rpm is Artistic.)
Lastly, I'll attach the python script I've been working on to produce the reports. It's not the best code for sure, but hopefully it's not too awful. Improvements are welcome.
On Fri, 2007-09-21 at 14:27 -0400, Todd Zullinger wrote:
I think there are still some package listed here that needn't be. Is "GPLv2+ or Artistic" valid? I believe you said it was and would add it to the wiki, but it is not there and thus still not in the rpmlint config (which I'm using as the source for valid licenses, updated to match wiki rev 91).
Darn. OK. I've definitely committed that change to the wiki now.
The packages affected are:
perl perl-Jcode perl-Unicode-Map perl-Unicode-Map8 perl-Unicode-MapUTF8 perl-Unicode-String procmail
GPLv2+ or Artistic is valid for perl and procmail AFAIK, but it is likely a copy/paste error for the others I believe.
I checked, and it was an error for the others, and they have been corrected now.
The list of packages with License tags matching "^Artistic$" is attached.
OK, I went through that list:
cpan2rpm (ghenry): "Artistic" (incorrect license) cracklib (nalin): "Artistic" (emailed upstream) d4x (thias): "Artistic" (emailed maintainer, as he had a note in the changelog on an impending license change) perl-Apache-Session (steve): "Artistic" (emailed upstream, upstream agrees to GPL+ or Artistic) perl-Authen-Radius (ixs): "Artistic" (emailed upstream) perl-Class-Data-Accessor (cweyl): "Artistic" (emailed upstream) perl-Class-Gomor (sindrepb): "Artistic" (emailed upstream) perl-Class-Singleton (steve): "Artistic" (emailed upstream) perl-Crypt-CBC (ixs): "Artistic" (emailed upstream) perl-DBIx-POS (cweyl): "Artistic" (emailed upstream) perl-DBIx-SQLite-Simple (sindrepb): "Artistic" (emailed upstream) perl-Font-TTF (nim): "Artistic" (emailed upstream) perl-GD (jpo): "Artistic" (emailed upstream, upstream says relicensing as GPL+ Artistic 2.0) perl-IO-Multiplex (lmb): "Artistic" (emailed upstream) perl-Image-Size (jpo): "Artistic" (emailed upstream) perl-LockFile-Simple (ixs): "Artistic" (emailed upstream, upstream says GPL+ or Artistic ok) perl-Net-Netmask (wtogami): "Artistic" (incorrect license tag, should be Copyright only, corrected) perl-Net-Packet (sindrepb): "Artistic" (emailed upstream) perl-Net-SNPP (jcollie): "Artistic" (wrong license tag, should be GPL+ or Artistic, emailed maintainer) perl-Net-Write (sindrepb): "Artistic" (emailed upstream) perl-NetAddr-IP (ixs): "Artistic" (emailed upstream) perl-Parse-RecDescent (rnorwood): "Artistic" (emailed upstream) perl-Razor-Agent (robert): "Artistic" (emailed upstream) perl-Regexp-Common (corsepiu): "Artistic" (emailed upstream) perl-SNMP_Session (jpo): "Artistic" (emailed upstream) perl-SVG-Graph (alexlan): "Artistic" (emailed upstream) perl-Text-Autoformat (steve): "Artistic" (emailed upstream) perl-Text-Reform (steve): "Artistic" (emailed upstream) perl-Tie-EncryptedHash (pghmcfc): "Artistic" (emailed upstream) perl-Unix-Syslog (steve): "Artistic" (emailed upstream) perl-XML-Grove (rnorwood): "Artistic" (emailed upstream) perl-pmtools (jpo): "Artistic" (emailed upstream) pgadmin3 (ghenry): "Artistic" (emailed upstream) pv (jhrozek): "Artistic (modified) (incorrect license tag, should be Artistic 2.0, emailed maintainer) qstat (andriy): "Artistic" (emailed upstream) rman (jamatos): "Artistic" (emailed upstream) tetex-IEEEtran (rvinyard): "Artistic" (is LPPL now) z88dk (pfj): "Artistic" (actually Artistic Clarified, corrected)
~spot
Tom spot Callaway wrote:
Darn. OK. I've definitely committed that change to the wiki now.
We're watching you. ;)
OK, I went through that list:
If you want help with that sort of thing next time, just ask. I'm sure you enjoy it immensely, but I'd be happy to share a little of the fun.
-
Todd Zullinger -
Tom Callaway