"Todd Vierling" <tv@pobox.com> writes:

> On 5/14/06, Greg Troxel <gdt@ir.bbn.com> wrote:
>>   The rights granted under this license are limited solely to
>>   distribution and sublicensing of the Contribution(s) on, with, or for
>>   operating systems which are themselves Open Source programs. Contact
>>   The Open Group for a license allowing distribution and sublicensing of
>>   the Original Program on, with, or for operating systems which are not
>>   Open Source programs.
>>
>> So it is reasonable to assume that some parties may have licenses to
>> use openmotify on Interix, or other non-open-source systems.
>
> No, as such a license doesn't exist.  See:
>
> http://www.opengroup.org/openmotif/
>
> which specifically states OpenMotif as being available only for Open
> Source OS's, period.  Motif, the commercial product, is the one they
> license for commercial closed-source OS's.

The license specifically says "Contact us for a license for
distributing the Original Program on, with, or for operating systems
which are not Open Source programs" and defines "Original Program" to
mean essentially what we call "openmotif distfile".  I am simply
taking them at their word.  I will not dispute that the web page you
pointed out essentially contradicts the statement in license.

In the general case, I believe it's possible for people to have side
agreements, or to be in jurisdictions that hold the license to be
unenforceable, or whatever, and that letting people set
ACCEPTABLE_LICENSES solves all of this without endangering TNF.

> That said, as I pointed out privately, setting LICENSE now kills the
> openmotif binary pkg for default bulk builds.  That may cause some ...
> complaints.

I don't think it will; I thought packages with non-free licenses that
didn't set NO_PKG_ON_FTP still got built.

LICENSE should be set according to the current documented rules for
the variables in the guide.  I personally think it's a feature that
pkgsrc won't build non-free software by accident - but that's open to
debate.

> Really, this should be handled in some way that prevents building on
> non-OSS operating systems by default (even non-bulk builds!), unless
> something is set, but not prevent bulk builds at all on the open
> source OS's.

That requires an additional mechanism to perform more complex logic
about licenses, and a policy decision about the set of licenses
software can be under and get built by default without the user saying
somehow "it's ok to build a package with a license in some other set
of licenses".

Do you think we should not set LICENSE on some programs with non-Free
terms?  If so, it might help to articulate a proposed rule for
deciding when LICENSE might be set.

-- 
        Greg Troxel <gdt@ir.bbn.com>