tech-pkg archive

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

Re: CVS commit: pkgsrc/licenses

"OBATA Akio" <> writes:

> On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 23:34:33 +0900, Greg Troxel <> 
> wrote:
>> "OBATA Akio" <> writes:
>>>  * ruby-license itself is like a artistic license
>> Interesting - I was not able to figure that out from reading it.
> Matz said, "ruby's license came from perl's artistic license with some 
> modification".
> And it seems that he want to apply more relaxed license than GPL to ruby. 
> (Why now GPL? because early ruby version contains GPLed regex library).

OK - then maybe it can be submitted to OSI/FSF for evaluation/approval.
A view that a project that wants to be free software should choose an
approved license or get theirs approved is perhaps a bit harsh, but is
increasingly what I'm thinking as we go through this.

>> I can see the point that people might want to avoid GPL for things they
>> are redistributing, perhaps building into a product.  The license
>> framework is not intended to enable such people to set a few variables
>> and have their product be clean - it's just to avoid accidentally
>> building software with objectionable licenses.
> Hmm...I felt that new license framework is for such people...

Anyone shipping a product would be crazy to rely solely on the license
framework.  It would be a helpful tool to keep the development team in
check (by forcing the setting of a product-compatible ACCEPTABLE_LICENSE
value) pending the real, formal evaluation.  With products the real
question is what code one makes proprietary modifications to - it's not
an actual problem to ship sources for unmodified or
willing-to-share-modified.  So a straight ACCEPTABLE_LICENSE test
doesn't really solve the problem.  I think it's a useful mechanism, but
that it's mostly useful in less critical situations.

Attachment: pgpD3LHtagxKg.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index