tech-pkg archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

license guidelines

I think we're in need of guidelines regarding adding new licenses (and I
would agree that this has not been adequately clear to date).  My
proposal follows.

  The purpose of LICENSE tagging is to avoid accidentally building
  software with objectionable licenses.  There is an admitted bias
  towards Open Source/Free software, and an admitted bias towards
  broadly accepted licenses and against boutique licenses.  There is no
  intent to have a full machine-readable taxonomy of all possible
  licenses.  There is a cost to having many licenses in pkgsrc, and
  licenses should be added only in support of the purpose of LICENSE

  It is important that software that is non-Free and non-Open-Source be
  tagged so that it does not build by default.

  It's more important that software which is actually Free or Open
  Source build without hassle than that the nuances of Free/Open Source
  licenses be tagged accurately.

  If a package has an OR of multiple licenses, and one of the licenses
  is approved as open/free, then tag with that license, and leave a
  comment about the other one.

  Only licenses that will actually be used in LICENSE= statements should
  be added.

  Licenses that are approved by OSI/FSF can be added to licenses/ and to
  the default in without discussion, but take care that the
  same license with a slightly different name is not already present.
  When in doubt ask on tech-pkg@.

  Licenses that are clearly non-free and non-open (not just not
  approved, but that would not be approved) can be added to licenses/
  without discussion, with the same caveat about care to avoid

  In the case of licenses that appear intended to be free/open but are
  not approved, some effort to contact upstream and get them to either
  modify the license or submit it for approval should be made.
  Proposals to add licenses in this middle group should be sent to
  tech-pkg@ for discussion before adding them.

  When AND conditions are implemented, it is appropriate to add all
  licenses listed in an AND condition.  When OR conditions are
  implemented, it is appropriate to add licenses in OR conditions when
  there is a demonstrated need to use the less common license.  Boutique
  and fringe licenses as alternatives to Free licenses should only be
  added when there are actual people who have stated in public that the
  free license is objectionable but the boutique license is not

  Anything more complicated than above should be discussed on tech-pkg@
  before being added.

An alternative proposal is that we should decide not to tag Free/Open
Source software, reverting to just #LICENSE= comments.  So far tagging
of free software has seemed to cost more than the benefits.

Attachment: pgpy3u3G0myEh.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index