[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: CVS commit: pkgsrc/pkgtools/pkg_install/files/lib
On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 02:27:26PM -0500, Greg Troxel wrote:
> Alistair Crooks <agc%pkgsrc.org@localhost> writes:
> > On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 08:21:08PM -0500, Greg Troxel wrote:
> >> 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.
> > Yes, the objection is to the current policy - we should not just be
> > rubber-stamping FSF licenses, since their licensing requirements are
> > different to TNF's - principally more stringent and onerous.
> So do you object to all copyleft licenses being in
No, absolutely not. Just GPLv3, LGPLv3, and AGPLv3, as I said in the
quoted text below.
> > We see a number of companies who will not use GPLv3 or LGPLv3 software.
> > We see a number of BSD projects which will not include GPLv3 or LGPLv3
> > software.
> > Both of these decisions have been taken following legal advice.
> > I think we should respect the wishes of those entities, and remove
> > GPLv3 and LGPLv3 from the current list, and also remove AGPLv3 too.
-- See above --
> (Ryo ONODERA makes good points about GPL3 code in NetBSD base:
> ~/NetBSD-current/src/external/gpl3 > ls -l
> total 14
> drwxr-xr-x 2 gdt users 512 Nov 1 05:49 CVS
> -r--r--r-- 1 gdt users 311 Nov 1 05:49 Makefile
> -r--r--r-- 1 gdt users 3130 Apr 1 2010 README
> drwxr-xr-x 7 gdt users 512 Nov 13 2009 binutils
> drwxr-xr-x 6 gdt users 512 Jul 19 07:58 gcc
> drwxr-xr-x 6 gdt users 512 Oct 19 11:32 gdb
> Can you point to a published documented license policy by TNF that
> excludes GPL3? I didn't find it linked from:
No, because there is no such document.
I find it difficult to align the requirements that some companies have,
which states that GPLv3 (and other *GPLv3 licenses) will not be allowed,
with having the *GPLv3 licenses as a first class citizen within pkgsrc.
OpenBSD will not touch GPLv3 - hence the downlevel version of gcc in their
tree, and the focus on pcc. I can't speak for FreeBSD, but I suspect that
part of their focus on clang is due to GPLv3.
Commercial shunning of GPLv3 is, I suspect, down to the legal
interpretation of the patent clause.
> We are not talking about inclusion in the base system. We are simply
> talking about installing packages. So I think there's a much lower bar,
> and excluding licenses from DEFAULT_ACCEPTABLE_LICENSES that are present
> in base system code does not make sense to me.
I completely disagree. I'm aware that pkgsrc licensing only covers
the pkgsrc part of the repo, and of binary packages downloaded;
however, simply to follow the FSF line will not hold for pkgsrc. As a
default, *GPLv3 should not be included, and it should be switchable by
anyone downloading packages to say explicitly that they want to have
I really do NOT want pkgsrc telling me that I can have *GPLv3 packages
linked into whatever I download, unless I have told the pkg tools
"it's ok, I will include these *GPLv3-licensed packages".
> As I've said before, anyone who is going to take software from pkgsrc,
> make a derived work, and distribute it or serve it over a network needs
> to talk to counsel. So the whole ACCEPTABLE_LICENSES situation is
> about people who are not doing something that causes them to need
> If there are people with a no-GPL3 policy, then perhaps we need a
> GPL3_ACCEPTABLE?= yes
> which if set to no changes the default for DEFAULT_ACCEPTABLE_LICENSES.
> That would certainly enable places with a "free software ok, but not
> GPL3" policy to adapt pkgsrc very easily.
There are definitely people with a no *GPLv3 policy (which includes the AGPLv3).
Pkgsrc, and the pkg_* tools for binary downloads, needs to cater for them.
Main Index |
Thread Index |