Alistair Crooks <agc%pkgsrc.org@localhost> writes: > On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 07:19:42PM +0000, Ryo ONODERA wrote: >> Module Name: pkgsrc >> Committed By: ryoon >> Date: Sat Nov 26 19:19:42 UTC 2011 >> >> Modified Files: >> pkgsrc/pkgtools/pkg_install/files/lib: license.c >> >> Log Message: >> Add gnu-agpl-v3 to the default list. First, unless we no longer use the variable set in mk/license.mk, we should keep it and the list in pkg_install in sync, with a faux atomic commit. > I think we should probably talk about this one... The current articulated policy (in pkgsrc/mk/license.mk) is that a license is in the default list if it is Free per the FSF, or Open Source per OSI. Per http://www.opensource.org/licenses/agpl-3.0 http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#SoftwareLicenses both of those are true. So it should be added to the default list, without requiring discussion or approval. But, if you object to this, then I think you're really objecting to the above policy -- which is a reasonable discussion to have, separate from whether agpl is properly added to the default list under the current documented policy. That said, I don't understand the basis for objecting to the AGPL in pkgsrc. If people create derived works from pkgsrc, then distributing them requires compliance. AGPL essentially has a different definition of distributing. If someone has a problem with *using* software under AGPL3 but has no problem with software under GPL3, then I would like to hear from them and understand the objection. It could be that we want a mk.conf variable that enables whole classes of licenses, but I think where we are is: For mere use (not creating derived works), the default set causes no particular problems (that would be avoidable with some other hypothetical default set). For creating and distributing derived works, you have to pay attention and discuss with your own counsel, and it's ill advised for pkgsrc to pretend otherwise.
Description: PGP signature