Date: Wed, 17 Dec 97 14:01:27 -0500 (EST) From: woods@kuma.web.net (Greg A. Woods) To: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: clarification of RESTRICTED flag for ports ma be apropriate Message-ID: <m0xiOil-0009vBC@kuma.web.net>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I was given the following reference about ports package controls: > There are already NO_CDROM, NO_PACKAGE and RESTRICTED variables that > can be set in a package's Makefile. Here's how they are described in > the FreeBSD documentation (see <URL:ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/ > FreeBSD-current/doc/handbook/porting.sgml>): > > <enum> > <item>If the port has a `do not sell for profit' type of > license, set the variable <tt>NO_CDROM</tt>. We will make > sure such ports won't go into the CD-ROM come release time. > The distfile and package will still be available via ftp. > > <item>If the resulting package needs to be built uniquely for > each site, or the resulting binary package can't be distributed > due to licensing; set the variable <tt>NO_PACKAGE</tt>. > We will make sure such packages won't go on the ftp site, nor > into the CD-ROM come release time. The distfile will still be > included on both however. > > <item>If the port has legal restrictions on who can use it > (e.g., crypto stuff) or has a `no commercial use' license, > set the variable <tt>RESTRICTED</tt> to be the string > describing the reason why. For such ports, the > distfiles/packages will not be available even from our ftp > sites. > </enum> This doesn't do a very good job of identifying the difference between "commercial use" in the sense of copyright license sense and the load-and-run software sense. Since this misconception seems to endure forever it would probably be a good idea for the above paragraph to make a more accurate distinction. The RESTRICTED flag is really only applicable to legal restrictions outside normal copyright licensing. Eg. trade secrets, fully restricted copyright (usually also covered by trade secret), export laws, etc. If the package is freely re-distributable source code but has a 'no commercial use' copyright license then it should *NOT* be listed as RESTRICTED. NO_CDROM would suffice (unless they don't want binaries distributed, in which case NO_PACKAGE would be OK, though in reality I don't believe there's been any test of whether a copyright license can truely restrict binary re-distribution when source is freely available). The term "use" in copyright law means *copying*, and almost always implies "for commercial gain", though there is some protection (at least in Canada) for defamation of character. In essence any copyright license on "free" software (or shareware for that matter) is extremely difficult to defend, at least in Canada and the USA because it's next to impossible to show any concrete damages. Perhaps if someone re-distributed a badly hacked version of your code and as a result you lost your current job then you'd have a case, but otherwise I'd bet the best you could get would be a cease&desist order. -- Greg A. Woods +1 416 443-1734 VE3TCP robohack!woods Planix, Inc. <woods@planix.com>; Secrets Of The Weird <woods@weird.com>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?m0xiOil-0009vBC>