Re: CVS commit: pkgsrc/licenses

[Brook Milligan <brook%nmsu.edu@localhost>]

> On Aug 13, 2019, at 10:07 AM, Greg Troxel <gdt%lexort.com@localhost> wrote:
> 
> 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://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fenterprise.dejacode.com%2Flicenses%2Fpublic%2Fbiopython%2F&amp;data=01%7C01%7Cbrook%40nmsu.edu%7C1da3f1d63c734959460a08d7200869b5%7Ca3ec87a89fb84158ba8ff11bace1ebaa%7C1&amp;sdata=8ljXU2Z%2FiPCSd9c8Ut7HnebG2TZODZdog%2FT4T9LagNA%3D&amp;reserved=0,
>>  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 didn't mean to imply that it was.  It's just the only mention I could find that tried to assess the license.

>> 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?

Here is an example:  https://packages.debian.org/jessie/python-biopython

Does this mean that Debian considers it an open source license?  How can you tell?  Should I change the license file?

>> 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.

OK.  Something for the future. :)

> 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.

OK, but if you have comments from the questions above that would change this, please let me know.

Cheers,
Brook