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 Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 01:50:27PM -0500, Greg Troxel wrote:
 > > > Practically, I'd say someone running a service, making derivative works,
 > > > and withholding source needs advice of counsel anyway, in which case
 > > > they can change the ACCEPTABLE_LICENSES variable.  People just using
 > > > NetBSD systems don't have the issue you described.
 > >
 > > So the moment I enable bozohttpd in base, or configure Apache, I need
 > > to talk to counsel, and I shouldn't be expected to be able to do these
 > > things safely otherwise? That's what you're saying, and I think it's
 > > absurd.
 > No, I didn't say that.  I said if you are running a business and are
 > creating dervied works of software to which you do not hold copyright,
 > and distributing them, then you need advice, and that paying attention
 > only to what us pkgsrc people say is crazy.  Further you really need
 > someone to pay attention and have license issues be part of your written
 > design and business plan, even for cases when you don't think you need a
 > lawyer.  If you stick to non-copyleft licenses, this advice conversation
 > is brief.  With copyleft licenses, it's longer.

That's fine, but it ignores the point.

 > > This AGPL affects *installing and running* software, not just
 > > releasing and shipping it. It is fundamentally different from the
 > > basic GPL this way, and it should not be enabled by default.
 > Are you talking about the network-as-distribution clause, or about the
 > patent claues in GPL3?  (Both are fair things to discuss, but let's keep
 > them separate.)

yes, one branch of the thread per topic please.

 > For the network-as-distribution, installing and running doesn't cause
 > trouble; the trouble comes from offering network access to derived
 > works.

That is exactly what "installing and running" means for many programs;
that's why I cited bozohttpd and Apache, and while those are perhaps
contrived examples, what about web application frameworks? What about
an otherwise apparently harmless support library that turns out to be
used by some application framework?

Fortunately the infrastructure for these things is not currently
infected with this license, but I don't think pkgsrc should allow such
restrictions to creep in without notice.

And do you really think everyone who installs a web server or
something like Zope should be seeking counsel?

David A. Holland

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index