Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2021 16:39:16 +0000 From: Chris Rees <crees@bayofrum.net> To: Chris <portmaster@bsdforge.com>, "Patrick M. Hausen" <hausen@punkt.de> Cc: 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: <24735bc7-799f-8382-c098-b82d857d3d92@bayofrum.net> In-Reply-To: <ff3bf133c3d8a207ba44396ee6b5ec48@bsdforge.com> 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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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@. Chris
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?24735bc7-799f-8382-c098-b82d857d3d92>