From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jul 16 10:44:43 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C11237B401 for ; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 10:44:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from out003.verizon.net (out003pub.verizon.net [206.46.170.103]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE2B043FAF for ; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 10:44:42 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from cswiger@mac.com) Received: from mac.com ([141.149.47.46]) by out003.verizon.net (InterMail vM.5.01.05.33 201-253-122-126-133-20030313) with ESMTP id <20030716174441.XRLD4805.out003.verizon.net@mac.com>; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 12:44:41 -0500 Message-ID: <3F158EF8.90409@mac.com> Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 13:44:24 -0400 From: Chuck Swiger Organization: The Courts of Chaos User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andreas Barth References: <20030716150546.GD1239@mails.so.argh.org> In-Reply-To: <20030716150546.GD1239@mails.so.argh.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.76.1.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Authentication-Info: Submitted using SMTP AUTH at out003.verizon.net from [141.149.47.46] at Wed, 16 Jul 2003 12:44:41 -0500 cc: ports@FreeBSD.org cc: bryanh@giraffe-data.com Subject: Re: netpbm-Port X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 17:44:43 -0000 Andreas Barth wrote: > at debian we're having problems with netpbm. This includes: > - the many different licences that need permanent licence auditing > - unwillingness to use manpages > - inconsistent interface > More at http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/debian-devel-200307/msg00542.html > Is this a sole debian problem, or are you having similar problems? If > so, it would be time-efficient to tackle the problems together. I'm > unknown how FreeBSD works, and not subscribed to any list, so please > send me direct answers after a decision has been made. The FreeBSD port of NetPBM is marked "NO_CDROM", which means that FreeBSD doesn't distribute this software on the CD's that Wind River and other FreeBSD distributors sell. You're right about the license situation being complex, but fortunately one can turn most of that problem over to the maintainer and the guys at sourceforge.net. In particular, this utility, mentioned in docs/COPYRIGHT.PATENT: /* hpcdtoppm (Hadmut's pcdtoppm) v0.6 * Copyright (c) 1992, 1993, 1994 by Hadmut Danisch (danisch@ira.uka.de). * Permission to use and distribute this software and its * documentation for noncommercial use and without fee is hereby granted, * provided that the above copyright notice appear in all copies and that * both that copyright notice and this permission notice appear in * supporting documentation. It is not allowed to sell this software in * any way. This software is not public domain. */ ...violates the Open Source Definition, and should be brought to the attention of the maintainer for replacement or removal. It is Bryan's responsibility to make sure that the distribution files of a project hosted at SourceForge are compliant with the OSD, largely so that organizations like Debian, FreeBSD, and the like are able to redistribute such projects without restriction. Note that I am not criticizing Hadmut Danisch's license; I've got code out there under very similiar terms, such as Angband, and I've been dealing with some of the same license issues myself. In other words, this is familiar territory. It may be the case that the above license and the OSD represent a conflict that cannot be resolved, but: http://www.pkix.net/~chuck/Licenses/NRL.html ...is an attempt to split the difference that might be of interest to you or others. -- -Chuck PS: Are you a member of SourceForge, Andreas? If not, I can file a support request with regard to this matter if you like. PPS: I don't regard HTML as an adequate replacement for manpages, either. Telling someone to go to an URL doesn't help one bit if they have a standalone system without net connectivity. On the other hand, the solution to that aspect is even easier: if Bryan doesn't want to maintain manpages, fine: either someone else needs to step up and do so, or else it won't be done.