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

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

On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 06:22:57AM +0900, Ryo ONODERA wrote:
> 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.

We shall have to disagree about this one, then, although, given the
nature of the software you are talking about (readline), I don't see
much difference between using and distributing (since use of the
software during development will almost always result in it being
redistributed).

> > 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.

Sorry, my wording was bad - I want the *GPLv3 licenses to be removed
from the default list of acceptable licenses.

Your arguments so far have centered around the popularity of software,
and not the license itself.

I don't think that we have the luxury of thinking in this way, and I
don't like to set myself up as someone who can decide for someone else
what they must do with their own property - DRM and patents - which is
why I want us to remove the *GPLv3 licenses from the default list.

Regards,
Alistair