Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2005 00:40:26 +0100 From: Erik Trulsson <ertr1013@student.uu.se> To: Warner Losh <imp@harmony.village.org> Cc: cvs-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports CHANGES UPDATING ports/Mk bsd.port.mk ports/accessibility/linux-atk Makefile pkg-plist ports/archivers/stuffit Makefile ports/astro/linux-setiathome Makefile Message-ID: <20041231234026.GB2097@falcon.midgard.homeip.net> In-Reply-To: <20041231.155719.41643247.imp@harmony.village.org> References: <200412311824.iBVIOAhM026389@repoman.freebsd.org> <20041231152001.R12851@blues.jpj.net> <41D5C530.4050903@freebsd.org> <20041231.155719.41643247.imp@harmony.village.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Dec 31, 2004 at 03:57:19PM -0700, Warner Losh wrote: > > I assume that you are talking about this part, yes? > > > > > - remove RESTRICTED from some GPL licensed ports, even when we only > > > distribute binaries, we get them from official linux sites, so > > > anyone can grab them there if he needs to > > > > > > > FWIW, I brought up similar concerns with Kris a few days ago, and it was > > discussed further in private with myself, him, and Warner. I'm still > > very concerned about it and I don't think that a real resolution was > > reached. This was something that was going to be brought up in an > > upcoming concall, but that obviously hasn't happened yet. It's likely > > that we need a real legal opinion here, not just idle conjecture. But > > yes, this is on the radar and I hope to have a resolution soon. > > I think the conclusion was that we can redistribute the binaries, > unchanged, without the srpms because we're relying on the people we > got the rpms from to continue to distribute them. This falls under > the clause 3c in the gpl. However, since we've not had a written > offer, pursuant to cluase 3b, from the upstream source, I'm not sure > that we can apply 3c to our situation. We have an implicit offer, but > not an explicit one. It seems fairly clear to me that if you have not had a written offer, pursuant to clause 3b, then 3c does *not* apply. > > The project would be in compliance if we had the SRPMs on our web/ftp > server, or if we had an explicit third party agreement. Agreed. > The cdrom > makers, however, would need to either provide the SRPMs, or make an > explicit agreement with the project to use the Project's copies of the > sprms Agreed. >, assuming we don't make a section 3b written offer they can pass > through. Making a secction 3b written offer seems like a real PITA since that means you *must* keep the sources around for at least 3 years. If you provide sources along with binaries you only need to keep the sources around for as long as you make the binaries available. > I'd say we just have a 'source only' cdrom for this, but > that's just an off the cuff idea. > > This one is grey, but likely legal. I would say it is grey, but likely *illegal*. > The more disturbing one is when > we have GPL'd software as binary packages. If we don't also provide > the distfiles on our site, then we're in bigger trouble becaue that's > no logner a grey area, but a more explicit violation of the GPL. > > Ideally, the ports infrastructure would grow a setting to allow for > this to be easily managed. -- <Insert your favourite quote here.> Erik Trulsson ertr1013@student.uu.se
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20041231234026.GB2097>