tech-pkg archive

[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 <> 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
*GPLv3 packages.

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
> counsel.
> If there are people with a no-GPL3 policy, then perhaps we need a
> variable
> 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.


Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index