Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg%bec.de@localhost> writes: > On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 12:53:41PM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote: >> But really, the trouble comes down to a collision of >> >> AGPL is a Free Software license that pretty much everyplace but TNF is >> ok with >> >> Some people in NetBSD were very bothered by "make package-install" installing >> AGPL software. >> >> and there's no great fix. > > Please don't mischaracterize it like that either. It's not true that > only some people in NetBSD are bothered by it. Just that all the big > Linux distros don't have a problem with "free" software that wants to > enslarly the user nor do they have a problem with other licenses in that > area like the Server Side Public License. If you look at the amount of > love that created, it certainly doesn't seem to be universally loved. A fair point that other people don't like it. But, I am unaware of any other packaging system (by which term I include GNU/Linux distributions) that rejects AGPL3 in the main/default-license-ok category. The SSPL is another beast; AIUI that was proposed to OSI for review and then withdrawn, and now the OSI has stated that the license is not open source: https://opensource.org/node/1099 I believe it is uncontroversial within pkgsrc that SSPL gets the non-Free-denoting -license suffix, that it is not in DEFAULT_ACCEPTABLE, and that no one is suggesting it be added.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature