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

[Ryo ONODERA <ryo_on%yk.rim.or.jp@localhost>]

Hi,

From: Alistair Crooks <agc%pkgsrc.org@localhost>, Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2011 
21:12:06 +0100

> 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.

I feel redistribution is redistribution.

> 
> 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

!
Should be removed?
If we follow your opinion we must remove all gnu-*gpl-v3 packages.
I cannot imagine pkgsrc without readline and editors/emacs etc..

> 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.

--
Ryo ONODERA // ryo_on%yk.rim.or.jp@localhost
PGP fingerprint = 82A2 DC91 76E0 A10A 8ABB  FD1B F404 27FA C7D1 15F3