Re: [gentoo-dev] Clarify the "as-is" license?

[Ulrich Mueller <ulm@gentoo.org>]

>>>>> On Sun, 23 Sep 2012, hasufell  wrote:

>> If we really decide to move things to a new license file, then I'd
>> rather avoid the name "as-is" because it is partly the reason for
>> the confusion.

> I agree on that. I saw it more than once that people use "as-is" for
> the license, just because there is an "as is" clause.

Right. Here's a small (but prominent) sample, namely all "as-is"
packages from the amd64 livecd and stage3:

- net-misc/ntp: "as-is" looks fine as main license, although some
  parts of the code are under different licenses like GPL (but I
  haven't checked in detail what gets installed).

- sys-apps/hdparm: "as-is" approximates it (but different wording).
  Debian lists this package as "BSD".

- dev-util/yacc: "public-domain" according to README.

- media-libs/libpng: Comes with its own license. Free.

- media-libs/portaudio: "MIT"

- net-misc/openssh: BSD-ish, something like "BSD BSD-2 as-is BEER-WARE
  public-domain" would be close.

- net-wireless/rfkill: "ISC"

- sys-apps/man-pages: Patchwork of files with different free
  licenses. "as-is GPL-2+ BSD MIT LDP-1 public-domain" would cover
  most of it.

While the above are at least free software (mostly BSD/MIT like),
I think that as-is is completely wrong for the following:

- app-admin/passook: Seems to have no license at all.

- net-wireless/zd1201-firmware: No license in tarball or on homepage.

- net-wireless/prism54-firmware: Ditto, and package is mirror
  restricted. (How can it be on our install media then?)

Ulrich