Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 14:07:50 +1000 From: Dewayne Geraghty <dewaynegeraghty@gmail.com> To: ports-list freebsd <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Licence practice for dependencies - making use of more restrictive licences optional Message-ID: <CAGnMC6oHFcnD_XmjePRm_ngDb86GqNJEy%2BHLBdRj%2Bbzg%2BSAS_w@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
The recent change to https://svnweb.freebsd.org/ports/head/dns/opendnssec13/ Makefile?view=markup&pathrev=439426 which uses BSD3Clause, while gnugrep uses GPLv3+; reminded me of a customer's requirement to remove GPLv3 code from a device they needed. While attempting to satisfy a particular customer's requirement, it became apparent that I was also seeking compliance with the author's intent of using a less restrictive licence; yet it seems that some port maintainers/committers are unintentionally restricting the software by adding dependencies that add these restrictive licences/practises. It would be better if such restrictions were optional, rather than mandatory as this opendnssec example, perhaps something similar to what is done in security/krb5-115 could be adopted as part of Standard Operating Practices (port maintainers guide?) For my client? A few scripts and a quick (recursive) search for GPL against their requirements list revealed the easy low-hanging fruit of replacing readline by libedit (in some cases removing both); and moving what used GPL source into a separate jail sufficed. Regards, Dewayne
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAGnMC6oHFcnD_XmjePRm_ngDb86GqNJEy%2BHLBdRj%2Bbzg%2BSAS_w>