Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2021 08:56:55 -0800 From: Chris <portmaster@bsdforge.com> To: Chris Rees <crees@bayofrum.net> Cc: "Patrick M. Hausen" <hausen@punkt.de>, 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: <c8e16409be03a16e808106cfc23ad054@bsdforge.com> In-Reply-To: <24735bc7-799f-8382-c098-b82d857d3d92@bayofrum.net> 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> <ff3bf133c3d8a207ba44396ee6b5ec48@bsdforge.com> <24735bc7-799f-8382-c098-b82d857d3d92@bayofrum.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2021-03-04 08:39, Chris Rees wrote: > On 04/03/2021 16:16, Chris wrote: >> 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? :-) >> > The pdflib that we have in the port *is* pdflib-lite :) Hence my proposed > review to ale@. > Brilliant! Thanks! :-) --Chris > Chris
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?c8e16409be03a16e808106cfc23ad054>