Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 23:02:49 -0400 From: Indi <thebeelzebubtrigger@gmail.com> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: GPLv3-licensed ports Message-ID: <20100520030249.GB66753@satcidananda.16x108.merseine.nu> In-Reply-To: <07FC36C8-5B95-4DCA-967A-8FAF4D062D3F@gmail.com> References: <20100518224102.GH326@comcast.net> <4BF3D549.90305@dataix.net> <20100519185406.GA67403@comcast.net> <07FC36C8-5B95-4DCA-967A-8FAF4D062D3F@gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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? Should I also add something to the pkg-descr? > > > As an end-user I don't care about GPLv3 other than from a philosophical stance; but using GPLv3 with FreeBSD as an employee is a non-starter, so that's a good primary reason for the wiki page I think. > This data should really be inside the Makefile or something similar to CATEGORIES, etc like Gentoo Linux does (at least you know what you're getting before you install a package or port). That way other non-permissive licenses could be audited before the package is installed and someone could make a decision as to whether or not they can install it either because 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. -- Indulekha Sharpe
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20100520030249.GB66753>