openSUSE packagers' take on the 3 month release cycle

[Harald Sitter]

On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 2:28 PM, Scott Kitterman <kde at kitterman.com> wrote:
>>Could you please elaborate why the licensing stuff cannot be
>>automatically done?
>
> There I'd a licensecheck script that does this. It helps, but the results have to be checked and properly documented and so thete is still substantial manual work required. KDE packages are generally better about consistently documenting copyright and licensing, but we still find bugs and it's still a lot of work.

Mhh, I'd also like to add that the 10% false-positives/not detected
licenses are the ones that cause most headaches. Stuff like...

file.cpp:
> // Yo, BSD here.
> // << BSD boilerplate >>
>
> #include "foo.h"
>
> // This here code be borrowed from gnome-shell and be GPL 2.
> static int meow(void) { return 1; }
> // This be the end of all code borrowed from gnome-shell that be GPL 2.

First you'd need to find that (or hopefully not find it because it's
ewww). If you do however, the question is whether that is even
compatible, and if so, is there a complete copy of the GPL in the
source (as required by the license), ...

If all the cases of license were

<< copyright holders >>
<< license text >>
<< code >>

there would not be any problem. But reality diverges :(

HS