Re: CVS commit: pkgsrc/pkgtools/pkg_install/files/lib

[Alistair Crooks <agc%pkgsrc.org@localhost>]

On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 04:18:05AM +0900, Ryo ONODERA wrote:
> For what it may be worth, NetBSD current accepts gcc under GPLv3 and
> gmp and mpfr under LGPLv3.

Yes, these pieces of software are covered by the README file that the
board put in place:

        
http://cvsweb.netbsd.org/bsdweb.cgi/src/external/gpl3/README?only_with_tag=MAIN

In particular is the part which states:

        We recommend companies redistributing GPLv3 licensed code to
        consult their lawyer before using it.

This is inconsistent with a "*GPLv3 licenses are OK, just opt out
if you disagree" viewpoint. I view redistribution as an extended case
of use.

In passing, I've also heard of inclusion of *GPLv3 software as being
a firing offence in some companies. This is second-hand, but I can
follow this up if anyone disputes this.
 
> And devel/readline is released under gnu-gpl-v3. Should we remove
> readline from default accepted packages? I feel it is inconsistent
> with reality.

Our own libedit is often used as a BSD-licensed equivalent.

If readline is GPLv3 licensed, I believe it should be removed. I do
not wish to dictate to people what they must use, what they must do
in the DRM/DMCA area, and what they must do with their own patents.
If that makes me out of touch, or "inconsistent with reality", then
so be it.

Regards,
Alistair