Subject: Re: Motif default
To: Dieter Baron <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Greg Troxel <email@example.com>
Date: 06/14/2007 11:50:28
Dieter Baron <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> In article <email@example.com> Greg wrote:
> : (Despite replying to your first message, I did read the rest first.)
> : Both the old bulk build code, the Python based prototype and pbulk don't
> : upload a package if either restricted or no_bin_on_ftp is set. This is
> : might be more restrictive than necessary, but I wouldn't want to change
> : this without a full license audit.
> : This is wrong. For our FTP servers, it should simply pay attention to
> : NO_BIN_ON_FTP. Fixing this bug without a 'full audit' seems fine;
> : that's really no worse than uploading a bulk build without a full audit
> : of every package - the typical problem I've found is that a package is
> : non-free but not tagged. Once someone has paid attention it's usually
> : ok.
> It could lead to TNF distributing programs it is not allowed to
> distribute, which could lead to legal problems. It is very unlikely
> that someone will sue without warning us first, and we will remove the
> package (and tag it correctly) if warned, but it's still a
All sorts of things could lead to all sorts of trouble, and many of them
could be true now. What TNF is willing to do is a subject for board@ to
decide and I don't want to discuss it further here.
> Since you are most familiar with the plethora of licenses in pkgsrc,
> would you be willing to go over the packages that set RESTRICTED but
> not NO_BIN_ON_FTP and check that they are correctly tagged? After
> that, we could savely fix the upload script.
I don't have spare time right now. I don't see a strong argument not to
just fix the bug in the script.
> : It is a bug if a package sets RESTRICTED and doesn't set LICENSE,
> : because a free/open source license will by definition have no
> : restrictions.
> While I generally agree, there are corner cases. What do you think
> about VICE? The program is GPL, but it includes ROM images from the
> Commodore 64, which have questionable copyright status. Currently, it
> RESTRICTED= ROM image copyright is questionable.
> but no license set.
The *package* is not GPL, because it contains unlicensed code. If the
package were GPL, it wouldn't be RESTRICTED :-) So it's
RESTRICTED= (as it is)
NO_*_ON_* (all 4)