Prev: mail/moztraybiff incorrectly works with WRKDIRPREFIX
Next: Depend on ${PORTSDIR}/foo WITH_OPTION
From: Konstantin Tokarev on 19 May 2010 09:35
> No, 3-clause BSD license is compatible with GPLv3 [1] (you can follow
> multiple arrows on that figure). You can combine BSD-licensed code with
> GPLv3-licensed code and either use it privately or redistribute it under
> GPLv3. Pretty much the same as with GPLv2.

Surely.

>
> This actually implies that the packages and possibly the patches in GPL
> ports are covered by GPL too... hence the "legal decision" I guess. OK.

Patches itself (sources) may have any compatible license (including BSD), but when they are applied to GPL sources, produced sources fall under GPL completely, including modified parts

--
Regards,
Konstantin
_______________________________________________
freebsd-ports(a)freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe(a)freebsd.org"

From: Charlie Kester on 19 May 2010 14:54
On Wed 19 May 2010 at 05:10:49 PDT jhell wrote:
>Adding to this bundle of madness...
>
>I believe that it would be best practice to keep ports/LEGAL up-to-date
>with this list.
>
>Those who already have ports on a machine may find it more usefull to
>find them there.
>
>Quoting ports/LEGAL:
>"Some of the ports in this directory have restrictive copyrights" and
>GPLv3 I believe certainly would fall under that category.

Yes, I don't what the original legal concerns were that led to the wiki
page, but I know that many FreeBSD users are wary of GPLv3. So it makes
sense to let them know which ports are licensed that way.

After checking the COPYING files, some more of my ports for the list:

devel/gengetopt
devel/libYGP
sysutils/iextract
sysutils/gaffitter

The ports in the devel category are especially noteworthy,
since (if I understand correctly) their license will infect anything
built with them.

Is ports/LEGAL prominent enough? Should I also add something to the pkg-descr?
_______________________________________________
freebsd-ports(a)freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe(a)freebsd.org"

From: Eitan Adler on 19 May 2010 15:26
> Is ports/LEGAL prominent enough?  Should I also add something to the
> pkg-descr?

I'd rather not. I remember some work about adding licensing support to
the ports framework but can't seem to find it now. Perhaps tools like
portmaster or portupgrade could be modified to warn the user when
installing a GPLv3 port is being installed?

--
Eitan Adler
_______________________________________________
freebsd-ports(a)freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe(a)freebsd.org"

From: Doug Barton on 19 May 2010 15:32
On 05/19/10 12:26, Eitan Adler wrote:
>> Is ports/LEGAL prominent enough? Should I also add something to the
>> pkg-descr?
>
> I'd rather not. I remember some work about adding licensing support to
> the ports framework but can't seem to find it now. Perhaps tools like
> portmaster or portupgrade could be modified to warn the user when
> installing a GPLv3 port is being installed?

Speaking for portmaster, I'm not going to touch anything having to do with licenses with a "thirty-nine and a half foot" pole.

Doug

--

... and that's just a little bit of history repeating.
-- Propellerheads

Improve the effectiveness of your Internet presence with
a domain name makeover! http://SupersetSolutions.com/

_______________________________________________
freebsd-ports(a)freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe(a)freebsd.org"

From: Garrett Cooper on 19 May 2010 19:51
On May 19, 2010, at 11:54 AM, Charlie Kester wrote:

> On Wed 19 May 2010 at 05:10:49 PDT jhell wrote:
>> Adding to this bundle of madness...
>>
>> I believe that it would be best practice to keep ports/LEGAL up-to-date
>> with this list.
>>
>> Those who already have ports on a machine may find it more usefull to
>> find them there.
>>
>> Quoting ports/LEGAL:
>> "Some of the ports in this directory have restrictive copyrights" and
>> GPLv3 I believe certainly would fall under that category.
>
> Yes, I don't what the original legal concerns were that led to the wiki
> page, but I know that many FreeBSD users are wary of GPLv3. So it makes
> sense to let them know which ports are licensed that way.
>
> After checking the COPYING files, some more of my ports for the list:
>
> devel/gengetopt
> devel/libYGP
> sysutils/iextract
> sysutils/gaffitter
>
> The ports in the devel category are especially noteworthy, since (if I understand correctly) their license will infect anything
> built with them.
>
> Is ports/LEGAL prominent enough? Should I also add something to the pkg-descr?


As an end-user I don't care about GPLv3 other than from a philosophical stance; but using GPLv3 with FreeBSD as an employee is a non-starter, so that's a good primary reason for the wiki page I think.
This data should really be inside the Makefile or something similar to CATEGORIES, etc like Gentoo Linux does (at least you know what you're getting before you install a package or port). That way other non-permissive licenses could be audited before the package is installed and someone could make a decision as to whether or not they can install it either because of licensing constraints, export issues, or the like...
Thanks,
-Garrett_______________________________________________
freebsd-ports(a)freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe(a)freebsd.org"

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: mail/moztraybiff incorrectly works with WRKDIRPREFIX
Next: Depend on ${PORTSDIR}/foo WITH_OPTION