[Slackbuilds-users] Feature request

[King Beowulf]

In a commercial environment, one shouldn't just install stuff willy
nilly anyway without checking the "source" package. License info is
there, whether xGPL, MIT, etc or proprietary. Even some "free" OSS
licenses might need special care before installing.  Java is in that
realm as the license is for the end user and not software
distributors.

Either way, license management should be the resposibility of the end
user and not SBo as no sources are hosted on SBo.

-Ed

On 11/14/12, Ivan Zaigralin <melikamp at melikamp.com> wrote:
> On 11/14/2012 04:10 AM, Petar Petrov wrote:
>> Quoting Ivan Zaigralin <melikamp at melikamp.com>:
>>
>>> How about a variable in .info which identifies the type of license(s)
>>> used
>>> in the package to be built? Something like
>>>
>>> LICENSE="free"|"non-free"
>>>
>>> or
>>>
>>> FREE_SOFTWARE="true"|"false"
>>>
>>> where "free" would indicate that the package only contains free software.
>>>
>>> The inclusion of this variable can be made optional.
>>>
>>> This will be transparent to those who want to keep using Slackbuilds the
>>>
>>> same way as before, but it will also provide utility to everyone. With
>>> only
>>> a modest effort from each maintainer, every user will be able to quickly
>>>
>>> check the license type of a package without chasing down the  sources.
>>> Moreover, automated license management will become possible.
>>
>> Hi
>>
>> License management? Do we really need this?
>
> It is a very useful feature, especially in a commercial environment, where
> running afoul of a license can cost users a lot.
>
>> Isn't this going to make things more complicated, unnecessarily? I may
>> sound
>> lazy and selfish, but I do not want to have to check a yet another thing
>> before i submit a SlackBuild.
>
> Like I said, let's make it optional. Then you won't have to bother. Or may
> be
> someone else will review the license and let you know, sparing you from the
> extra work. Not a lot of software goes from free to non-free or vice versa,
> so the amount of effort required to keep this up to date will be truly
> tiny.
>
>> If some software requires registration or has something "special" about
>> it's
>> license, couldn't this be listed in the README?
>
> This would not be an improvement over putting the license(s) into the doc
> dir,
> which is mostly done already. In particular, it does nothing to help
> automation.
>
>

-- 
Sent from my mobile device

You! What PLANET is this!
	-- McCoy, "The City on the Edge of Forever", stardate 3134.0