pkgconf's license is incorrect (should be ISC or pkgconf, not MIT)
Nobody has claimed this yet.
Assessment
- Difficulty
- 1/5
- Estimated time
- Under an hour
- Newbie friendliness
- 88/100
- Issue type
- Bug
- Clarity
- Clearly specified
- Activity status
- Quiet
- Tech stack
- shell
- Domain
- build-system
Research direction
Open srcpkgs/pkgconf/template at the license field and compare it with the upstream and SPDX references linked in the issue. Replace the incorrect MIT identifier with the agreed ISC or pkgconf identifier, then review the template to confirm the package metadata no longer claims MIT.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Description
Currently pkgconf's template file claims it's under the MIT license and has since the beginning. However, the actual license text
Copyright (c) 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018
pkgconf authors (see AUTHORS file in source directory).
Permission to use, copy, modify, and/or distribute this software for any
purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above
copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies.
This software is provided 'as is' and without any warranty, express or
implied. In no event shall the authors be liable for any damages arising
from the use of this software.
does not resemble the MIT license:
MIT License
Copyright (c) [year] [fullname]
Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy
of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal
in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights
to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell
copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is
furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:
The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all
copies or substantial portions of the Software.
THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM,
OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE
SOFTWARE.
The upstream project says it's under the ISC license and distros generally seem to agree. The SPDX license list meanwhile has a separate entry for it due to the differences in the second paragraph. I think going with either license="ISC" (since the license is an ISC variant and most places, including the upstream, simply state it's licensed as ISC) or license="pkconfg" (to follow SPDX pedantically) would be a reasonable choice here.
- Dominant language
- Shell
- Stars
- 3.4k
- Forks
- 2.8k
- Avg merge
- 2d 7h
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 310
Contributor guide
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
More from void-linux/void-packages
-
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 88/100
void-linux/void-packages#62620 · 1 comment ·
-
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 72/100
void-linux/void-packages#62603 ·
-
bug needs-testing
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 62/100
void-linux/void-packages#62598 ·
-
bug needs-testing
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 72/100
void-linux/void-packages#62562 ·
-
bug needs-testing
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 68/100
void-linux/void-packages#62552 ·
All issues in void-linux/void-packages
Similar issues
-
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 90/100
danielmiessler/LifeOS#2218 ·
-
docs(agents): strengthen the no-backslash-escaped-backticks rule with an issue-creation example Open
Difficulty 1/5 Under an hour Newbie friendliness 92/100
-
package-update
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 76/100
oSoWoSo/vOid_Community_repOsitory#148 · 1 comment ·
-
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 68/100
-
chore
Difficulty 1/5 Under an hour Newbie friendliness 91/100
alunduil/alunduil-chezmoi#792 ·