Re: CVS commit: pkgsrc/licenses

[Greg Troxel <gdt%lexort.com@localhost>]

Brook Milligan <brook%nmsu.edu@localhost> writes:

>> This has a -license suffix, implying it is non-Free (non-Open,
>> non-DFSG).  But it looks like a Free Software license.  Does Debian
>> really not allow it?  Does upstream think it is Free?
>
> Yes, that was my intent.  It is not listed by OSI or others as free,
> despite the obvious similarities to others that you noted.  The only
> indication of it being "free" that I know of is at
> https://enterprise.dejacode.com/licenses/public/biopython/, but even
> that suggests inconsistencies between the "license profile" and the
> "license style".  I have no idea about how the judgements are arrived
> at by that site.

That site is not considered authoritative by pkgsrc.

> I will note that BioPython states that they are in the process of
> relicensing everything with the 3-clause BSD license, but at far as I
> know that effort is not complete.  Thus, for now it seems that the
> -license part is ok.

Did you look to see if packages under this license are accepted under
Debian?

> By the way, the Boost license is listed as free by OSI but is in a
> file called 'boost-license'.  Is this an historical artifact?  Should
> it be changed?

I think it must be a historical problem.  Yes, it probably should be
changed.



It's ok with me for you to leave this as biopython-license, as long as
you don't want to add it to DEFAULT_ACCEPTABLE.