Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2014 13:20:47 +0100 From: John Marino <freebsd.contact@marino.st> To: Kevin Oberman <rkoberman@gmail.com>, CyberLeo Kitsana <cyberleo@cyberleo.net> Cc: "ports@FreeBSD.org Ports" <ports@freebsd.org>, Nicola Vitale <nivit@freebsd.org>, tabthorpe@freebsd.org Subject: Re: LPPL10 license consequences intended? (arabic/arabtex) Message-ID: <532ED19F.1090100@marino.st> In-Reply-To: <CAN6yY1t0X%2BYE9s10wi0spV7_H4BDPks%2BC_UwXdZsd9Wnbh_%2BFA@mail.gmail.com> References: <532DC88A.7010104@marino.st> <CAN6yY1uf67ogKyqNO025%2BpcU21PmFYCiQULd4z6TsaYbFma3_A@mail.gmail.com> <532DFDB2.1090200@cyberleo.net> <CAN6yY1t0X%2BYE9s10wi0spV7_H4BDPks%2BC_UwXdZsd9Wnbh_%2BFA@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 3/23/2014 00:05, Kevin Oberman wrote: > On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 2:16 PM, CyberLeo Kitsana <cyberleo@cyberleo.net>wrote: > >> On 03/22/2014 02:27 PM, Kevin Oberman wrote: >>> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 10:29 AM, John Marino <freebsd.contact@marino.st >>> wrote: >>> >>>> In December, Nicola set the license for Arabtex to LPPL10. >>>> The result is that the port is no longer packagable: >>>> >>>>> ====>> Ignoring arabic/arabtex: License LPPL10 needs confirmation, but >>>> BATCH is defined >>>>> build of /usr/ports/arabic/arabtex ended at Mon Mar 17 16:12:44 PDT >> 2014 >>>> >>>> From a quick conversation on IRC, I got the idea that the license was >>>> correct and many more Tex packages should also have this license. >>>> If/when that happens, does that mean Tex packages are only to be built >>>> from source? >>>> >>>> Is it correct that LPPL10 can't be built in a batch? >> >> No. You must accept the license before you can build the port, and you >> cannot interactively accept a license in non-interactive batch mode. >> >> See the commments in /usr/ports/Mk/bsd.licenses.mk for what to set in >> make.conf to automatically accept certain licenses. >> > > I have again looked over the LPPL and there is no language requiring > explicit acceptance of the license that I can find. I see nothing about > this more restrictive than LGPL or other standard licenses. > > Am I missing it? According to SVN, tabthorpe@ added these licenses as a result of PR ports/151300 a couple of years ago. Maybe he should weigh in and tell us if making it more restrictive than the GPL was a mistake in the original PR that just carried over? If the latex licenses are indeed not defined correctly, they need to be fixed. I'd think tabthorpe@ would take the first crack at since he added them, but if he doesn't want to, then who should evaluate and potentially fix this? John
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?532ED19F.1090100>