Electron-builder: builded .deb shows wrong license informations

[yafp]

• Version: 21.2.0

none

• Target: Linux (.deb)

If i double click the .deb on ubuntu the application software opens up and shows informations about this particular .deb file. Under license it shows "proprietary" while my package.json has the following configured:

...
"license": "GPL-3.0",
    "build": {
  ...

Question:

Is that an error in

• my package.json file,
• the Ubuntu Software Center ui or
• really from electron-builder?

[kauffj]

https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-desktop also has this issue and has been unable to find a solution

[yafp]

https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-desktop also has this issue and has been unable to find a solution

thanks for the info. Let's hope there is a fix.

[kauffj]

The license makes it into the metadata. The issue is that the license value is still showing as proprietary.

kauffj@kauffj-t480:~$ dpkg-deb --info /home/kauffj/Downloads/LBRY_0.36.1.deb 
 ...
 Package: lbry
 Version: 0.36.1-7689
 License: MIT
 Vendor: LBRY Inc. <[email protected]>
 ...

I suspect additional metadata needs to be included (or "MIT" is not an acceptable value), but we haven't been able to determine what it is.

[yafp]

or "MIT" is not an acceptable value

as i am having issues with GPLv3 - i doubt its MIT related ;)

[kauffj]

@yafp user @danrobi11 provided some useful info over on the lbry-desktop ticket:

https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-desktop/issues/1376#issuecomment-543833312

[danrobi11]

As suggested by wxl at Lubuntu: https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-desktop/issues/1376#issuecomment-544212361
I opened a deb packages License issue at the gnome-software gitlab. Andre Kappler at gitlab needs more information from you guys.
Please have a look, thanks: https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gnome-software/issues/833#note_628721

[stale[bot]]

Is this still relevant? If so, what is blocking it? Is there anything you can do to help move it forward?

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs.

[yafp]

It is still relevant

[kauffj]

The specific issue is known at this point, which is that electron-builder needs to include this machine-readable copyrights file, or at least spit some sort of warning out that you are expected to package this yourself.

https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/

[danrobi11]

New development from the gnome-software regarding this issue.
https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gnome-software/issues/875#note_674048

[yafp]

Thanks @danrobi11 for the hint.
Let's hope the electron-builder developers are considering a fix on this side as well

[stale[bot]]

Is this still relevant? If so, what is blocking it? Is there anything you can do to help move it forward?

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs.

[kauffj]

This is still relevant. It is workable or close to workable.

See: https://github.com/electron-userland/electron-builder/issues/4270#issuecomment-568115155 https://github.com/electron-userland/electron-builder/issues/4270#issuecomment-569185627

[stale[bot]]

Is this still relevant? If so, what is blocking it? Is there anything you can do to help move it forward?

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs.

[yafp]

Yes, this is still relevant.

[stale[bot]]

Is this still relevant? If so, what is blocking it? Is there anything you can do to help move it forward?

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs.

[marado]

Still relevant.

[stale[bot]]

Is this still relevant? If so, what is blocking it? Is there anything you can do to help move it forward?

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs.

[marado]

Still relevant.

[kauffj]

@develar even Visual Studio Code, arguably the most popular open source Electron app, builds a .deb that indicates a license of proprietary, when it's actually MIT licensed. As an open source developer yourself I'm sure you can appreciate the desire to have what you have built be labeled properly. Is there any way this issue can get looked at or prioritized?

[stale[bot]]

Is this still relevant? If so, what is blocking it? Is there anything you can do to help move it forward?

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs.

[marado]

Still relevant.