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


From: Alistair Crooks <>, Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2011 
21:12:06 +0100

> On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 04:18:05AM +0900, Ryo ONODERA wrote:
>> For what it may be worth, NetBSD current accepts gcc under GPLv3 and
>> gmp and mpfr under LGPLv3.
> Yes, these pieces of software are covered by the README file that the
> board put in place:
> In particular is the part which states:
>       We recommend companies redistributing GPLv3 licensed code to
>       consult their lawyer before using it.
> This is inconsistent with a "*GPLv3 licenses are OK, just opt out
> if you disagree" viewpoint. I view redistribution as an extended case
> of use.

I feel redistribution is redistribution.

> In passing, I've also heard of inclusion of *GPLv3 software as being
> a firing offence in some companies. This is second-hand, but I can
> follow this up if anyone disputes this.
>> And devel/readline is released under gnu-gpl-v3. Should we remove
>> readline from default accepted packages? I feel it is inconsistent
>> with reality.
> Our own libedit is often used as a BSD-licensed equivalent.
> If readline is GPLv3 licensed, I believe it should be removed. I do

Should be removed?
If we follow your opinion we must remove all gnu-*gpl-v3 packages.
I cannot imagine pkgsrc without readline and editors/emacs etc..

> not wish to dictate to people what they must use, what they must do
> in the DRM/DMCA area, and what they must do with their own patents.
> If that makes me out of touch, or "inconsistent with reality", then
> so be it.

PGP fingerprint = 82A2 DC91 76E0 A10A 8ABB  FD1B F404 27FA C7D1 15F3

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index