Subject: Re: ACCEPTABLE_LICENSES
To: Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino <email@example.com>
From: Frederick Bruckman <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 07/24/2000 11:05:45
On Mon, 24 Jul 2000, Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino wrote:
> are there any exact definition for ACCEPTABLE_LICENSES keywords, like:
> pkgsrc/mk/mk.conf.example only lists the keywords, not the meaning.
I know of none.
> the question arose between us when we are looking into
> pkgsrc/mail/sendmail*. sendmail* comes with "no-profit" keyword,
> - the term looks less restrictive than the GPL (we have two options,
> one is no-profit, the other is like GPL)
> - GPL items are not marked
I should think that if you plan on bundling or re-distributing a
package, or distributing a derivative work, the LICENSE keyword simply
alerts you to the fact that the package has a "funny" license, which
must be read for details.
> so we think we may need more exact definition for these keywords,
> and when to define these keywords.
That might be welcome. (I'd like to know the difference between
no-commercial-use and no-profit.)
As long as GPL is an option, I don't see why you need to define
LICENSE at all. SleepyCat DB (databases/db and databases/db3) has a
"GPL or better" license, where you can pay to keep your source code
secret if you want to, and neither defines LICENSE. The purpose of
defining LICENSE is to warn the end-user that the package may be
encumbered, not to apprise him of all the options available to him.