[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 <agc%pkgsrc.org@localhost>, Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2011
> On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 06:22:57AM +0900, Ryo ONODERA wrote:
>> From: Alistair Crooks <agc%pkgsrc.org@localhost>, 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:
>> > http://cvsweb.netbsd.org/bsdweb.cgi/src/external/gpl3/README?only_with_tag=MAIN
>> > 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.
> We shall have to disagree about this one, then, although, given the
> nature of the software you are talking about (readline), I don't see
> much difference between using and distributing (since use of the
> software during development will almost always result in it being
I see. I understand this.
>> > 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.
> Sorry, my wording was bad - I want the *GPLv3 licenses to be removed
> from the default list of acceptable licenses.
> Your arguments so far have centered around the popularity of software,
> and not the license itself.
> I don't think that we have the luxury of thinking in this way, and I
> don't like to set myself up as someone who can decide for someone else
> what they must do with their own property - DRM and patents - which is
> why I want us to remove the *GPLv3 licenses from the default list.
Even the license issue is strictly cleared, if installing popular
softwares is difficult, pkgsrc cannot appeal to users, I feel.
I feel this opinion is not a luxury.
Ryo ONODERA // ryo_on%yk.rim.or.jp@localhost
PGP fingerprint = 82A2 DC91 76E0 A10A 8ABB FD1B F404 27FA C7D1 15F3
Main Index |
Thread Index |