* Re: libreoffice meta package is GPL-3
2020-08-24 0:29 [ISSUE] libreoffice meta package is GPL-3 sgn
@ 2020-09-07 19:38 ` pullmoll
2020-09-07 19:40 ` pullmoll
` (8 subsequent siblings)
9 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: pullmoll @ 2020-09-07 19:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ml
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 351 bytes --]
New comment by pullmoll on void-packages repository
https://github.com/void-linux/void-packages/issues/24445#issuecomment-688486633
Comment:
Well, need to change the template to add license= to all subpackages then.
I don't know if it's worth to change the meta package to BSD-2-Clause just because it's itself empty.
@void-linux/pkg-committers ?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread* Re: libreoffice meta package is GPL-3
2020-08-24 0:29 [ISSUE] libreoffice meta package is GPL-3 sgn
2020-09-07 19:38 ` pullmoll
@ 2020-09-07 19:40 ` pullmoll
2020-09-07 19:44 ` Duncaen
` (7 subsequent siblings)
9 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: pullmoll @ 2020-09-07 19:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ml
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 426 bytes --]
New comment by pullmoll on void-packages repository
https://github.com/void-linux/void-packages/issues/24445#issuecomment-688486633
Comment:
Well, need to change the template to add license= to all subpackages then.
I don't know if it's worth to change the meta package to BSD-2-Clause just because it's itself empty.
@void-linux/pkg-committers ?
Edit: Oh, I see we now use `metapackage` as a license name (in `xorg`).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread* Re: libreoffice meta package is GPL-3
2020-08-24 0:29 [ISSUE] libreoffice meta package is GPL-3 sgn
2020-09-07 19:38 ` pullmoll
2020-09-07 19:40 ` pullmoll
@ 2020-09-07 19:44 ` Duncaen
2020-09-07 19:48 ` Chocimier
` (6 subsequent siblings)
9 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Duncaen @ 2020-09-07 19:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ml
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 320 bytes --]
New comment by Duncaen on void-packages repository
https://github.com/void-linux/void-packages/issues/24445#issuecomment-688488745
Comment:
I don't know if this is even worth the change, `metapackage` as license is worse than just the package license.
Imho to avoid confusion just use the license the software has.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread* Re: libreoffice meta package is GPL-3
2020-08-24 0:29 [ISSUE] libreoffice meta package is GPL-3 sgn
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2020-09-07 19:44 ` Duncaen
@ 2020-09-07 19:48 ` Chocimier
2020-09-07 19:49 ` Duncaen
` (5 subsequent siblings)
9 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Chocimier @ 2020-09-07 19:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ml
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 491 bytes --]
New comment by Chocimier on void-packages repository
https://github.com/void-linux/void-packages/issues/24445#issuecomment-688489882
Comment:
Not worth it, marking empty package with license= `BSD`, `GPL` or anything other is equally weird.
I would propose to use `empty=yes` instead of `build_style=meta` as this is not a build style, fail if package marked empty has files (unlike `=meta`) and not set license into binpkgs for them. But not setting license that was rejected already.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread* Re: libreoffice meta package is GPL-3
2020-08-24 0:29 [ISSUE] libreoffice meta package is GPL-3 sgn
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2020-09-07 19:48 ` Chocimier
@ 2020-09-07 19:49 ` Duncaen
2020-09-07 19:50 ` Duncaen
` (4 subsequent siblings)
9 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Duncaen @ 2020-09-07 19:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ml
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 296 bytes --]
New comment by Duncaen on void-packages repository
https://github.com/void-linux/void-packages/issues/24445#issuecomment-688490232
Comment:
Why should `xbps-query -S libreoffice` not contain the license of libreoffice, just because of an implementation design that we are using a meta package?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread* Re: libreoffice meta package is GPL-3
2020-08-24 0:29 [ISSUE] libreoffice meta package is GPL-3 sgn
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2020-09-07 19:49 ` Duncaen
@ 2020-09-07 19:50 ` Duncaen
2020-09-07 20:05 ` Chocimier
` (3 subsequent siblings)
9 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Duncaen @ 2020-09-07 19:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ml
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 296 bytes --]
New comment by Duncaen on void-packages repository
https://github.com/void-linux/void-packages/issues/24445#issuecomment-688490232
Comment:
Why should `xbps-query -S libreoffice` not contain the license of libreoffice, just because of an implementation detail that we are using a meta package?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread* Re: libreoffice meta package is GPL-3
2020-08-24 0:29 [ISSUE] libreoffice meta package is GPL-3 sgn
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2020-09-07 19:50 ` Duncaen
@ 2020-09-07 20:05 ` Chocimier
2020-09-07 21:52 ` Vaelatern
` (2 subsequent siblings)
9 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Chocimier @ 2020-09-07 20:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ml
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 504 bytes --]
New comment by Chocimier on void-packages repository
https://github.com/void-linux/void-packages/issues/24445#issuecomment-688494718
Comment:
Exactly because of implementation: `xbps-query -p license X` is metadata of files contained in package X, not its dependencies.
What should be license of lxqt or xorg that depends on packages under variety of licenses?
That said, in case of "uniform" sets like libreoffice, referencing deps is strictly better than previously-agreed constant `BSD-2-Clause`.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread* Re: libreoffice meta package is GPL-3
2020-08-24 0:29 [ISSUE] libreoffice meta package is GPL-3 sgn
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2020-09-07 20:05 ` Chocimier
@ 2020-09-07 21:52 ` Vaelatern
2020-09-19 23:41 ` pullmoll
2020-09-19 23:41 ` [ISSUE] [CLOSED] " pullmoll
9 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Vaelatern @ 2020-09-07 21:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ml
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 180 bytes --]
New comment by Vaelatern on void-packages repository
https://github.com/void-linux/void-packages/issues/24445#issuecomment-688520842
Comment:
I agree with Duncaen and Chocimier.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread* Re: libreoffice meta package is GPL-3
2020-08-24 0:29 [ISSUE] libreoffice meta package is GPL-3 sgn
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2020-09-07 21:52 ` Vaelatern
@ 2020-09-19 23:41 ` pullmoll
2020-09-19 23:41 ` [ISSUE] [CLOSED] " pullmoll
9 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: pullmoll @ 2020-09-19 23:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ml
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 182 bytes --]
New comment by pullmoll on void-packages repository
https://github.com/void-linux/void-packages/issues/24445#issuecomment-695367643
Comment:
I think we agree on WONTFIX - closing.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread* Re: [ISSUE] [CLOSED] libreoffice meta package is GPL-3
2020-08-24 0:29 [ISSUE] libreoffice meta package is GPL-3 sgn
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2020-09-19 23:41 ` pullmoll
@ 2020-09-19 23:41 ` pullmoll
9 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: pullmoll @ 2020-09-19 23:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ml
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 291 bytes --]
Closed issue by sgn on void-packages repository
https://github.com/void-linux/void-packages/issues/24445
Description:
@pullmoll
* package:
* libreoffice v7.0.0.3_1
### Expected behavior
Empty package shouldn't be GPL, since all other packages is derivative of an empty package,
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread