In article <20060515160446.GA12901@britannica.bec.de> joerg@britannica.bec.de wrote:
hi,

: > In any case, it is entirely clear and I believe undisputed that this
: > is not an open source license.  Therefore, given our current
: > documented guidelines it should have LICENSE set.

  What do FSF and OSI have to say about the OpenMotif license?  After
all, those are the documented criteria for setting LICENSE (pkgsrc
guide 16.5.2):

> Packages with licenses that are either Open Source according to the
> Open Source Initiative or Free according to the Free Software
> Foundation will not be marked with a license tag. Packages with
> licenses that have not been determined to meet either definition will
> be marked with a license tag referring to the license.


: *But* LICENSE currently triggers the restricted case of lintpkgsrc,
: which makes it inappropiate. I don't even want to discuss whether or not
: it is an open source license, since that ends up in a flamewar of its
: down.

  A set LICENSE does not seem to prevent the file from being uploaded on
ftp.netbsd.org, as shown by
	/pub/pkgsrc/packages-2006Q1/NetBSD-3.0/i386/All/povray-3.6.1nb3.tgz
which has LICENSE set to povray-license.

  And even if it did, that would be a bug in the upload script.  to
quote the pkgsrc guide:

> The license tag mechanism is intended to address copyright-related
> issues surrounding building, installing and using a package, and not
> to address redistribution issues (see RESTRICTED and NO_SRC_ON_FTP,
> etc.).


  So it seems clear that documented practice dictates we set LICENSE
for OpenMotif (unless and until we know that either FSF or OSI
approved the license).  If someone thinks we should not set LICENSE
for OpenMotif, please acknowledge that you are calling our current
practice into question and state why you think it needs amending.


  BTW: I don't think it makes sense to set NO_SRC_ON_FTP for non open
source operating system and not set it on open source operating
systems: Either we are allowed to redistribute the sources, or we are
not.


  As for ONLY_FOR_PLATFORM: Currently, the pkgsrc guide is rather
vague in which situation it should be used.  However, if the main
concern here is that a bulk builder setting _ACCEPTABLE violates the
license simply by building the package, a better solution might be to
flag a license as needing explicit acceptance.  If OpenMotif is the
only such package, and there is no way for a user to obtain a license
permitting building/using the package, setting ONLY_FOR_PLATFORM is
probably okay.


					yours,
					dillo