Subject: Re: x11/openmotify license terms
To: Dieter Baron <email@example.com>
From: Greg Troxel <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 05/16/2006 09:13:29
Dieter Baron <email@example.com> writes:
> The primary purpose of NO_SRC_ON_FTP is to determine if the dist
> file should be placed in ftp.netbsd.org's distfiles directory and thus
> also on its mirrors. Some of those mirrors run non open-source
> operating systems. Thus, if we are not allowed to place the dist file
> on ftp servers running on non open-source operating systems, we must
> set NO_SRC_ON_FTP unconditionally, otherwise we screw the maintainers
> of such mirrors. (It is unreasonable to expect them to selectively
> exclude files while mirroring.)
I think I got it wrong before, blurring distfiles _for_ Interix with
an Interix-based server. It's reasonable to construe the openmotif
license as "distfile may be distributed for use on Open Source OSes",
and thus any ftp site that has that as intent is OK. I just changed
it to never set NO_SRC_ON_FTP.
> _ACCEPTABLE is a hack to allow official bulk builds to include
> non-free packages we are allowed to redistribute in binary form. As
> such, it should enable building everything we are allowed to build,
> but not put the bulk builder at risk of license violation.
So that means we should define BULK_BUILD instead of _ACCEPTABLE, and
add code to not stop due to LICENSE if NO_BIN_ON_FTP is unset. That
will avoid including packages that can't be uploaded in the build, and
things that depend on them.
> What about packages that don't have NO_BIN_ON_FTP set but have a
> dependency that has NO_BIN_ON_FTP set? Are they currently uploaded?
They shouldn't be, because they might be a "derived work" according to
one of the theories.
> If so, part of the result of building the restricted dependency
> might be included in the unrestricted package (e. g. when linking
> against a shared library) and the case is less clear by far.
Or a static library; I agree that this is troublesome.
> I think a flag on certain licenses that says ``you are not allowed
> to even download and build this'' better meets our concerns. Then
> packages with these licenses are only built if the license is
> explicitly listed in ACCEPTABLE_LICENSES, not if only _ACCEPTABLE is
_ACCEPTABLE is an internal variable that gets set if LICENSE is in
ACCEPTABLE_LICENSES, so setting it for bulk builds is a hack. (I know
you know that, but thought I should point it out for others.)
At some point, we have to ask: If a license is so restrictive that
doing a bulk build is a violation, should the package even be in
pkgsrc? But openmotif isn't that.
Greg Troxel <firstname.lastname@example.org>