Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 14:16:48 -0800 From: Charles Swiger <cswiger@mac.com> To: Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: License compatibility issues? Message-ID: <0479E612-3447-44C8-B9D0-563B9472C477@mac.com> In-Reply-To: <CAD=7U2Di0ngE-PLO-Xf3TipWSZ4jXhR0ju-GhjDrAhD77SW5fw@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAD=7U2Di0ngE-PLO-Xf3TipWSZ4jXhR0ju-GhjDrAhD77SW5fw@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mar 6, 2015, at 1:39 PM, Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> wrote: > After a discussion on another list, I'm wondering if anyone has ever = done > anything to verify that the license requirements of the dependencies = of a > package (I don't know of any licenses that would cause problems for a = port, > as those don't involve distribution of derived works in the form of a > binary) are actually met? Yes. It is considered the responsibility of the port maintainer to set NO_PACKAGE, RESTRICTED, etc appropriately for the default port = options so that the precompiled packages provided by the FreeBSD project are legally OK to redistribute. If an end-user chooses to select different dependencies, then they are responsible for those choices. > For instance, a port licensed under the EPL that is statically linked = with a > GPL'ed library would produce a binary that couldn't be legally = distributed. That is a concern, but end-users of the ports can still compile the two = together and use the result, even if they cannot legally redistribute the = combination to others. Regards, --=20 -Chuck
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?0479E612-3447-44C8-B9D0-563B9472C477>