Dieter Baron <dillo@danbala.tuwien.ac.at> writes:

> In article <rmizm32ofrv.fsf@fnord.ir.bbn.com> Greg wrote:
> : (Despite replying to your first message, I did read the rest first.)
>
> :   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.
>
> : This is wrong.  For our FTP servers, it should simply pay attention to
> : NO_BIN_ON_FTP.  Fixing this bug without a 'full audit' seems fine;
> : that's really no worse than uploading a bulk build without a full audit
> : of every package - the typical problem I've found is that a package is
> : non-free but not tagged.  Once someone has paid attention it's usually
> : ok.
>
>   It could lead to TNF distributing programs it is not allowed to
> distribute, which could lead to legal problems.  It is very unlikely
> that someone will sue without warning us first, and we will remove the
> package (and tag it correctly) if warned, but it's still a
> possibility.

All sorts of things could lead to all sorts of trouble, and many of them
could be true now.  What TNF is willing to do is a subject for board@ to
decide and I don't want to discuss it further here.

>   Since you are most familiar with the plethora of licenses in pkgsrc,
> would you be willing to go over the packages that set RESTRICTED but
> not NO_BIN_ON_FTP and check that they are correctly tagged?  After
> that, we could savely fix the upload script.

I don't have spare time right now.  I don't see a strong argument not to
just fix the bug in the script.

> : It is a bug if a package sets RESTRICTED and doesn't set LICENSE,
> : because a free/open source license will by definition have no
> : restrictions.
>
>   While I generally agree, there are corner cases.  What do you think
> about VICE?  The program is GPL, but it includes ROM images from the
> Commodore 64, which have questionable copyright status.  Currently, it
> has:
> 	RESTRICTED= ROM image copyright is questionable.
> but no license set.

The *package* is not GPL, because it contains unlicensed code.  If the
package were GPL, it wouldn't be RESTRICTED :-)  So it's

LICENSE=generic-nonlicense
RESTRICTED= (as it is)
NO_*_ON_* (all 4)