coypu%SDF.ORG@localhost writes: > I've encountered a GPLv2 package that was not listed as such, and ran a > short check: > > /usr/pkgsrc $ git grep -L "LICENSE" |grep 'Makefile$' |wc -l > 6393 There is sometimes LICENSE in Makefile.common; when Makefile.common sets DISTFILE it is appropriate to set LICENSE in the same place. But that probably only reduces the 6393 you report to 5500 or so. A quick check of archivers with pkglint -r leads me to conclude that about 1/3 of packages do not have LICENSE. > There are approximately ~6000 packages with no LICENSE. > Do we see this as a problem worth resolving? Yes, in theory. > wip/ninka is supposed to be a tool to automatically detect license from > source code (currently broken). Will automating this task be acceptable? More or less, as long as the automated method does not make mistakes :-) In all seriousness, if the automated method returns an answer when it is sure, and declines to guess, that would help in terms of addressing the most number of packages with the least effort. I think it's time to set "LICENSE?= unknown-license", so that building package without a LICENSE set throws an error. This seems reasonable because such a package is not know to have a license from DEFAULT_ACCEPTABLE_LICENSES.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature