Hey,
On 08/04/2024 19:11, Polarian wrote:
One way of doing it (which I heard of some codebases doing) is to
append all the dependency licences into a single file
"DEPENDENCYLICENSES" or "3RDPARTYLICENSES", a lot of android apps do
this and then spit out the file in a "licence" screen, I ha
On 04/08/24 at 05:45am, Ryan Petris wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 7, 2024, at 12:42 PM, tippfehlr wrote:
> > 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 thi
Ey,
I don't know much about the kinks of this, but maybe we could put licenses for
each library in their own folders and symlink to these folders in the package's
license folder, all while keeping the parent package's license field the same?
I feel like there are probably a lot of issues in thi
Hello. Before this hit mails/MLs, I had a talk with Arvid in
#archlinux-offtopic, where the issue was first mentioned, finally
suggesting to to mail heftig directly. Two points from that talk.
First. I believe the “/usr/share/licenses” part is both more
important and easier to solve. The i
On Sun, Apr 7, 2024, at 12:42 PM, tippfehlr wrote:
> 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
> > pac
Here is the original email sent to arch-dev-public:
Forwarded message from Jan Alexander Steffens (heftig) on Sun Apr 7, 2024 at
1:10 PM:
---snip---
On Sat, Apr 6, 2024 at 10:42 PM Arvid Norlander wrote:
> Hi,
>
> After talking to people on Arch Linux IRC channels (mpan in particular)
> about
Could someone forward the contents of the original message? Thanks.
--
Cheers,
Aᴀʀᴏɴ
OpenPGP_0x4E85967FC7C436BE.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
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
On 07-04-2024 13:10, Jan Alexander Steffens (heftig) wrote:
Hi Arvid,
Thanks for bringing this issue to my attention and your detailed email
about it. I'm CCïng our public development mailing list in this
response so our other maintainers get informed, too.
I agree that Arch needs a solutio
