Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2021 08:16:45 -0800 From: Chris <portmaster@bsdforge.com> To: "Patrick M. Hausen" <hausen@punkt.de> Cc: Chris Rees <crees@bayofrum.net>, Greg Rivers <gcr+freebsd-ports@tharned.org>, ports@freebsd.org, ler@freebsd.org Subject: Re: www/joomla3 is no longer in the FreeBSD pkg repo Message-ID: <ff3bf133c3d8a207ba44396ee6b5ec48@bsdforge.com> In-Reply-To: <F812D137-F551-4519-9EB0-A483266EF6FC@punkt.de> References: <4797626.YNO7O01DYZ@no.place.like.home> <39391265.yjtGejjdTc@no.place.like.home> <2e5a17a5-cc66-9189-ef3e-35605f59dcce@bayofrum.net> <F812D137-F551-4519-9EB0-A483266EF6FC@punkt.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2021-03-04 00:50, Patrick M. Hausen wrote: > Hi all, > >> Am 04.03.2021 um 02:17 schrieb Chris Rees <crees@bayofrum.net>: >> The problem is, that although the php80 flavour does not depend on >> pecl-pdflib, the default flavour does, >> which means that the package will not be built as it you have to agree to >> pecl-pdflib's licence. > > I am not a lawyer. That being said I have done some homework and did a lot > if reading > in February 2020. Sent my findings to the port maintainer of print/pdflib, > but did not get > a response, unfortunately. > > My conclusion is that you don't need to agree to PDFlib GmbH's license, > because all > of the legalese on their home page applies to a completely different product > than the > one used by pecl-pdflib. > > But step by step ... > > 1. pecl-pdflib is published under the PHP license, so it is clearly open > source. > 2. The FreeBSD port is not based on pdflib, but pdflib-lite - this is the > crucial point. > 3. pdflib-lite is a product abandoned by PDFlib GmbH in 2011. > 4. pdflib-lite archives come with an open source license bundled in the > archive. > 5. This is the only license applicable to our case. All the other licensing > stuff on their > website applies to pdflib - *which is a completely different product*. > 6. The license bundled with pdflib-lite explicitly permits the distribution > of binaries as > long as the license document and some other auxiliary files are included. > 7. The port does this and puts the necessary documents in > /usr/local/share/doc/pdflib. > > You won't find any information about pdflib-lite on PDFlib GmbH's website, > because > they pulled it. Nonetheless the source is "out there", bundled with a > permissive license > which cannot be taken back. > > So the entire discussion is moot - as long as pecl-pdflib can be built with > pdflib-lite. > > The problem with the port/packages infrastructure is that this line in > ports/print/pdflib/Makefile > is nonsense, IMHO: > > RESTRICTED= Many odd restrictions on usage and distribution > > > Download the pdflib-lite tarball and see the documents for yourself. I am > repeating myself: > all the legalese on the PDFlib GmbH website *does not apply* to this product > (pdflib-lite). I needed the pdflib-lite for a script I cobbled up to batch convert to/from text/pdf a couple of years ago. I can confirm that the lib is with a *non*restrictive license. My humble suggestion; Can't we please simply create a pdflib-lite port, and be done with all this and related? :-) --Chris > > > Kind regards, > Patrick > --
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?ff3bf133c3d8a207ba44396ee6b5ec48>