'drone-runner-docker' is available under either of two license, both non-free

• PolyForm Small Business License
  prohibits non-commercial use depending on number of employees and company income

• PolyForm Free Trial License 1.0.0
  prohibits distribution and expires after a short time

'drone-runner-exec' and 'drone-runner-ssh' are available under either of those two license, and a third, also non-free - that one has the word "noncommercial" in the license name; so i did not even look at it

'drone' and 'drone-oss' are no so clear-cut - those are both split packages of the same PKGBUILD from the same VCS - firstly, 'drone' is not even the name of the project anymore - in that VCS is only one license, the apache license - the only indication that 'drone' may be non-free is the arch PKGBUILD "license=('custom:Drone-Non-Commercial')"; but the current code-base does not include any such license

the non-commercial license in the arch package was the LICENSE file in the VCS root when the PKGBUILD was written (when the project was actually named 'drone') - that describes how to build an apache-compliant binary; but there is no obvious way to checkout an apache-compliant source tree - the PKGBUILD builds them separately in separate directories

LICENSE:

The source files in this repository have a header indicating
which license they are under. The BUILDING_OSS file provides
instructions for creating the Community Edition distribution
subject to the terms of the Apache License.

BUILDING_OSS:

3. Install binaries to $GOPATH/bin
go install -tags "oss nolimit" github.com/drone/drone/cmd/drone-server

in the current VCS 'main' branch of the now renamed project, that LICENSE file is replaced with the standard apache 2; and the BUILDING_OSS file is no longer present - so it could be that the next arch package of both 'drone' and 'drone-oss' (or their new names) would be acceptable

still, as 'drone' and 'drone-oss' are built from the same PKGBUILD and VCS, if 'drone' (or whatever they name it) is non-free, then we would not be able to offer users a source-ball for it - ie: if we were to package this without arch (eg : a packaging request for PCR), it would probably need a lot of work to convert it to use mksource - hopefully, neither are non-free anymore; and maybe this would be a temporary blacklisting - otherwise i would prefer to blacklist all of them, rather than taking the time to produce a libre source-ball, or to distribute a binary package which has no known libre source-ball