On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 08:44:08AM +0200, Dieter Baron wrote:
>   What exactly is the problem here?  Are you saying we do not provide
> binary packages for any package with LICENSE set?  If so, I consider
> that a serious bug.

Not consistently. Some of those packages set RESTRICTED, others set
NO_BIN_ON_FTP. I wouldn't be surprised if some don't do either.
Examples are:
textproc/cdif
sysutils/tdir
sysutils/sysinfo
sysutils/su2
sysutils/fs-kit
security/srp_client
security/rsaref
security/msf
security/hydra

Many of those are non-commerical-only. I would argue that we violate the
tdir-license by not distributing the CHANGELOG.

>   We have a variable that says wether we can distribute binary
> packages: NO_BIN_ON_FTP.  That is only set for Openmotiv on non-OSS
> platforms.

Both the old bulk build code, the Python based prototype and pbulk don't
upload a package if either restricted or no_bin_on_ftp is set. This is
might be more restrictive than necessary, but I wouldn't want to change
this without a full license audit.

The real fix is to:
(a) Replace all manual NO_BIN_ON_FTP and RESTRICTED definitions with
proper LICENSE entries.
(b) Add a small make fragment for each license. This fragment should
decide whether CAN_DISTRIBUTE_SRC and CAN_DISTRIBUTE_PKG should be set,
depending on the platform, the license, a "commerical-use" variable and
a manual list of allowed licenses.

I think this is not an extreme amount of work, but still quite a bit.
The time before the branch might not be enough, so I've suggested the
secure alternative.

Joerg