tech-pkg archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

Re: pkgsrc/licenses

Joerg Sonnenberger <> writes:

> On Thu, May 05, 2011 at 09:58:33AM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote:
>> BY and SA seem obviously ok.
>> NC is fairly obviously not ok
> Needs NO_CDROM, but can be enabled by default otherwise.

It's not that simple.  The primary point of the license framework is
that people will not install/use packages with objectionable licenses
without realizing what they are doing.    We've made a philisophical
decision that licenses that are Open Source or Free are not
objectionable, or rather than people who find some of them objectionable
have to start from scratch with DEFAULT_ACCEPTABLE_LICENSES.

For fonts with NC, it's not clear if it's proper for me to install them
on a computer and work and use them to even view work email, much less
ship a derived system containing them.  Hence, those licenses shouldn't
be in DEFAULT_ACCEPTABLE - they are definitely non-Free.

>> ND is not obvious; it seems not ok.
> Depends in this case. Files that we don't want to be in the business of
> patching -- fine. Consider fonts. Make sure with upstream that building
> a package of otherwise unmodified files is not considered derived work.

The question is about the needs of the user, not about the needs of
pkgsrc.  ND is not Free or Open Source.

>> Has any free software umbrella organization issued opinions on whether
>> the various cc licenses are Free or Open Source?
> CC doesn't apply too much to software, which is why it is rarely used.
> The primary exceptions are documentation and artistic works.

Understood.  But here we're talking about fonts in pkgsrc, which is the
overlap case.

Attachment: pgpziubvzyiZO.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index