Re: epl-v2.0 as acceptable license

[Ryo ONODERA <ryo%tetera.org@localhost>]

Hi,

Greg Troxel <gdt%lexort.com@localhost> writes:

> Ryo ONODERA <ryo%tetera.org@localhost> writes:
>
>> pkg_install does not accept epl-v2.0 (Eclipse Public License Version 2.0)
>> by default.
>> Is there any reason not to include epl-v2.0 in default_acceptable_licenses?
>>
>> If there is no special reason, I would like add it
>> to default_acceptable_licenses.
>>
>>
>> epl-v2.0 is accepted by OSI.
>> https://opensource.org/license/epl-2-0
>>
>> And FSF accepts epl-v2.0 like epl-v1.0.
>> https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#EPL2
>
> doctrine as documented in license.mk is that approval by any of OSI,
> FSF, DFSG/debian is sufficient, and if so then
>
>   license can exist without a -license suffix
>   it can be in DEFAULT_ACCEPTABLE
>
> (except for AGPL, which is unquestionably Free and Open Source and does
> not have a -license suffix, but is not in DEFAULT_ACCEPTABLE, per
> board@, also documented).
>
> Given what you said, I'd say it's a bug/oversight that epl-v2.0 is not
> in whatever list pkg_install is using.

Thanks for your pointers.
epl-v2.0 may be overlooked simply.
I will add epl-v2.0 to pkgtools/pkg_install and mk/license.mk.

Thanks again.

-- 
Ryo ONODERA // ryo%tetera.org@localhost
PGP fingerprint = 82A2 DC91 76E0 A10A 8ABB  FD1B F404 27FA C7D1 15F3