Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 20:39:28 -0700 From: Garrett Cooper <yanefbsd@gmail.com> To: Indi <thebeelzebubtrigger@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: GPLv3-licensed ports Message-ID: <AANLkTilRodI-Q6BrnbBktvYb2KP8IfeTy1-wDzOt9s93@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20100520030249.GB66753@satcidananda.16x108.merseine.nu> References: <20100518224102.GH326@comcast.net> <4BF3D549.90305@dataix.net> <20100519185406.GA67403@comcast.net> <07FC36C8-5B95-4DCA-967A-8FAF4D062D3F@gmail.com> <20100520030249.GB66753@satcidananda.16x108.merseine.nu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 8:02 PM, Indi <thebeelzebubtrigger@gmail.com> wrote=
:
> On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 04:51:30PM -0700, Garrett Cooper wrote:
>> On May 19, 2010, at 11:54 AM, Charlie Kester wrote:
>> >
>> > The ports in the devel category are especially noteworthy, since (if I=
understand correctly) their license will infect anything
>> > built with them.
>> >
>> > Is ports/LEGAL prominent enough? =A0Should I also add something to the=
pkg-descr?
>>
>>
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 As an end-user I don't care about GPLv3 other than from a ph=
ilosophical stance; but using GPLv3 with FreeBSD as an employee is a non-st=
arter, so that's a good primary reason for the wiki page I think.
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 This data should really be inside the Makefile or something =
similar to CATEGORIES, etc like Gentoo Linux does (at least you know what y=
ou're getting before you install a package or port). That way other non-per=
missive licenses could be audited before the package is installed and someo=
ne could make a decision as to whether or not they can install it either be=
cause of licensing constraints, export issues, or the like...
>
> I'd go a step beyond that and suggest that GPL-licensed ports should
> have an EULA requiring the user to type yes or no, like parts of java
> and some other restrictively-licensed things.
No .. that will never fly with the number of ports in the ports
tree that are GPL licensed; I find the downloading the other accept
before continuing logic to be highly counterproductive when
downloading and installing ports, and I sure others do as well. It
would be considerably more convenient if there was a license signoff
for certain items because it would make things less of a PITA.
Looking at pkgsrc, they have a variable per-Makefile, LICENSE.
Determining what license a port is distributed under would be
considerably easier. Also, if someone wanted to block all GPLv3 ports,
they could effectively look for GPLv3 ports like so:
.if defined(LICENSE) && ${LICENSE} =3D=3D "GPLV3"
.error "GPLv3 licensed ports blocked due to site policy"
.endif
in make.conf, etc (or ports.conf like some folks have lightly
tossed around on #bsdports and elsewhere).
Thanks,
-Garrett
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?AANLkTilRodI-Q6BrnbBktvYb2KP8IfeTy1-wDzOt9s93>