On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 11:12:10AM +0200, Dieter Baron wrote:
> : 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.
> 
>   We differentiate between distributing via ftp and on CDs we sell for
> a reason.  We should keep this distinction.
> 
>   Also, while setting the restrictions centrally per license is
> conceptually cleaner, it only pays off if we have enough restrictive
> licenses that are used by multiple packages each.

It is not so much about reducing the amount of work necessary to deal
with a license. I want to centralise the decision making, so that to add
a "redistribution profile" only one place has to be evaluted.

I know why we differentiate between FTP and CD, but my point is that the
current choices are very arbitrary and under-documented.

Consider for example the CDs we hand out during LinuxTag and other
events. That's a CD, but non-commercial. So what I do want to get is
that the bulk builder can make a broad decision like
"default ftp.netbsd.org" set w/o non-commercial packages, but also
include packages if he is using them internally.

> : 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.
> 
>   Sounds reasonable.  Do we have an estimate on how many packages work
> with openmotif but not with lesstif?

I have no idea.

Joerg