Re: abell-94 license

[Greg Troxel <gdt%lexort.com@localhost>]

Leonardo Taccari <leot%NetBSD.org@localhost> writes:

> Frédéric Fauberteau writes:
>> FYI, I done that because Fedora Project treats this license as Free and 
>> GPL compatible as mentioned here: 
>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/Henry_Spencer_Reg-Ex_Library_License
>
> I think that it is also a DFSG license (at least the lsof package
> in Debian seems in `main' and there the license is called `Purdue').

I read the license and it seems obviously like a BSD license (w/o
advertising clause), so I think in the grand scheme of things it's ok.

But, the larger issue here is that the point of the FSF/OSI approval
notion is to keep TNF out of the business of license approval, or at
least mostly.

I am not aware of RH/Fedora having a strong notion of licenses being
adequately free.  But Debian definitely does.  So I think it's time to
formally add DFSG-approved as a third leg.  But, I think those should be
noted individually, as there is no published license list and figuring
out that a license is approved is hearder.

> IMHO it is in line with the free software principles
> (seems similar to zlib but more strict about crediting)
> and probably safe to add to DEFAULT_ACCEPTABLE_LICENSES.
>
> Little suggested further changes that we can do if it can stay as
> DEFAULT_ACCEPTABLE_LICENSES:
>
>  - Move `abell-94' in pkgsrc/mk/license.mk on its own separate line -
>    similar to `info-zip', `vera-ttf-license' and `happy' - with a link
>    to fedoraproject.org (or any other possible interesting references)

Can Frédéric (or someone) check to see if Debian approves it?  If so,
moving it to the end and explaining that it's DFSG approved sounds
good.  If not, that's an interesting question why not.

>  - Add `abell-94' to *default_acceptable_licenses in
>    pkgsrc/pkgtools/pkg_install/files/lib/license.c

Sure, once the above is sorted out.

>  - (Not strictly related!) Add `LICENSE= abell-94' to
>    devel/librxspencer :)

> Thank you Frédéric for spotting that this license was used in lsof
> and for adding and discussing that!

Yes, thanks for noticing.

Looking at license.mk, I see that vera-ttf license is added, but it
doesn't meet the OSI/FSF guidelines.  Just almost.  I'm not sure we want
to cross into almost, vs "would be approved if submitted".   Does
anybody know about debian and the vera license?