Ryo ONODERA <ryo_on%yk.rim.or.jp@localhost> writes: > Hi, > > From: Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg%britannica.bec.de@localhost>, Date: Sat, 26 > Nov > 2011 21:19:10 +0100 > >> On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 08:11:21PM +0000, David Holland wrote: >>> On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 08:46:08PM +0100, Alistair Crooks wrote: >>> > > Modified Files: >>> > > pkgsrc/pkgtools/pkg_install/files/lib: license.c >>> > > >>> > > Log Message: >>> > > Add gnu-agpl-v3 to the default list. >>> > >>> > I think we should probably talk about this one... >>> >>> yeah, I don't think that one should be turned on by default. >> >> But, but, it's from the FSF. It must be protecting your freedom! It >> can't be a bad idea, can it be? >> >> Jesting aside, I agree. > > Thanks for comments, all. > I want to move this thread from pkgsrc-changes@ to tech-pkg@. > # Is there better place? tech-pkg has historically been what we use for the not-yet-created pkg-legal-flaming%netbsd.org@localhost. We'll need that eventually if we want to keep up with Debian :-) > Why gnu-agpl-v3 is not acceptable for pkgsrc? A fair question; I asked a longer version of the question just now. > As far as I know, opensource.org and Debian project accept > gnu-agpl-v3 license. > See > http://opensource.org/licenses/AGPL-3.0 agreed. > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=495721 . Interesting, but to date pkgsrc has not had a policy that a license being declared DFSG-acceptable is a basis for putting it in the default list. That might be a reasonable policy, but it seems DFSG is severe enough that I am not sure there are licenses that are DFSG-acceptable and not Open Source or Free.
Description: PGP signature