Re: LPPL10 license consequences intended? (arabic/arabtex)
I just wanted to express my general concerns, since in past I was also making posts in the tone of the OP, and I wanted people to speak up so badly, I decided not to remain silent this time, even if the original problem is not really on my playground. I would also like to see portmgr actively participating in the discussions, leading by example and well, basically, leading and managing. If portmgr cant react on high number of port related PR's and the time it takes to handle them, ports quality, license framework, then... what actually portmgr can do and what's its point? I am aware we're all volunteers, but at the end, we've volunteered to certain duties, as maintainers, commiters and portmgr's, havent we? Even more, few people volunteered on multiple discussions in past, that they'd love to help with certain duties, and, well, they've been ignored. That really makes me wonder if anyone is actually in charge, has ideas, power and will to implement those, 'right' to make decisions, or are we just drifting in random directions depending on who takes what action and who does (or not) replies to stop them or not? Regards, BL On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 4:35 PM, Mark Linimon lini...@lonesome.com wrote: On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 11:34:29AM +0100, John Marino wrote: Don't dish it out if you don't want a response. The fact that you want to put it in these terms tells me everything I need to know. mcl ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: LPPL10 license consequences intended? (arabic/arabtex)
On 3/29/2014 04:14, Thomas Abthorpe wrote: On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 10:33:25AM +0100, John Marino wrote: It's been a few days and there's been no response to this. Should I assume that tabthorpe@ read this but is not prepared to review his work? There is an old adage about assumptions, I am sure you know what it is. Maybe I am just ignoring you. Maybe, just maybe, my mail system has been sideways for a week, and this is the first time I have been able to sit down and properly catch up on emails. You decide what answer suits you best. Look, you had several days to chime in on this topic. I am not going to put at the top of my list of possibilities that your email system is broken. Yes, it's possible. Many other options are far more likely. I'll go with door#2 Long story short, I have been extremely distracted by life outside of FreeBSD, as a result I will be stepping down from my responsibilities later this spring, as I have not been able to deal with everything on my plate. If that is the case, you should do exactly this. If you would like to take over the licensing stuff, I will be happy to assign your name to it. *this* is a crappy attitude though. This is I did something, but you clean it up. You can drop out, that's fine, but I'd expect somebody would at least be interested in their old work. How much time are are talking here? 10-20 minutes? You're going to write this sob story and try to shift this to others for a 20 minute job? All you had to say was, That was 3 years ago, I'm sorry if I didn't get it exactly right, but I'm not going to review again without all this backstory. I would work-ethically disagree with it, but I would respect you for saving us all 5 days of limbo. Obviously I'm not going to take over licensing. But this probably falls back to portmgr responsibility. I don't get your attitude given that you are not only portmanager (still) but actually was involved with this. If the portmgr group leaves this up to me, I'm going to disable this LPPL licenses and remove it from arabtex. How is that for dealing with it? John ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: LPPL10 license consequences intended? (arabic/arabtex)
On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 09:39:42AM +0100, John Marino wrote: *this* is a crappy attitude though. No, that's the sound of burnout. IMVHO, one of the contributing factors to burnout is exactly this kind of email. It was certainly the case in my decision to step back over a year ago. I appreciate that you are doing some good work for the project, but I find your current attitude disappointing. Not everything that ought to happen quickly does, on a volunteer project. mcl ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: LPPL10 license consequences intended? (arabic/arabtex)
On , John Marino wrote: On 3/29/2014 11:14, Mark Linimon wrote: On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 09:39:42AM +0100, John Marino wrote: *this* is a crappy attitude though. No, that's the sound of burnout. IMVHO, one of the contributing factors to burnout is exactly this kind of email. It was certainly the case in my decision to step back over a year ago. Come on, Mark. First of all, he started with the attitude, not me. Don't dish it out if you don't want a response. But everyone is a victim nowadays, rights? I appreciate that you are doing some good work for the project, but I find your current attitude disappointing. Not everything that ought to happen quickly does, on a volunteer project. tabthorpe is not just anybody, he's an assigned leader. Despite his intention to step down, he's still in that role today. I do expect people in leadership positions that they've agreed to assume to lead by example. Part of that is not just blowing off emails. The volunteer excuse is old and used as a blanket excuse for not doing what ought to be done. obviously it is often valid, but now it is often abused. Happen quickly? sure, I agree with that, it's life. Not Responding / acknowledging quickly? I disagree. It's easy to say, Hey, I see the issue, I'm pretty swamped for the next 10 days. I'll take a look at it after that if nobody else does in the meantime. And we should think about how to centralize licensing This licensing topic is actually kind of a big mess that nobody seems to be leading, and it's not even clear if missing licenses is a problem. What's the policy? It would be better to disable the entire framework than continue with this half-support. The policy on the licensing framework is that it was submitted by a GSoC student who has disappeared, and tabthorpe was the only one to step up and take care of the mess. Unfortunately that's the case with a lot of stuff here-- someone drops something, someone else generously picks it up and gets flak for historical issues, as well as not being able to devote 110% of their time to it. If you're interested in the license framework, PLEASE fix it up! Chris -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: LPPL10 license consequences intended? (arabic/arabtex)
On 3/29/2014 11:48, Chris Rees wrote: On , John Marino wrote: This licensing topic is actually kind of a big mess that nobody seems to be leading, and it's not even clear if missing licenses is a problem. What's the policy? It would be better to disable the entire framework than continue with this half-support. The policy on the licensing framework is that it was submitted by a GSoC student who has disappeared, and tabthorpe was the only one to step up and take care of the mess. Unfortunately that's the case with a lot of stuff here-- someone drops something, someone else generously picks it up and gets flak for historical issues, as well as not being able to devote 110% of their time to it. Ok, Chris, but that is not what happened here. I noted that tabthorpe committed a license PR without changes 3 years ago and basically from courtesy I offered that he take the first look. He wasn't getting any flak for making a mistake[1]. He also could have said, no thanks which, while disappointing, is his prerogative. The problem was that the offer put the topic in tabthorpe's court and without response the topic died. So the issue isn't lack of action, it's lack of response I guess. [1] It hasn't even fully been established that LPP10 is actually defined incorrectly although it leaning that way If you're interested in the license framework, PLEASE fix it up! That is just the thing, I'm not pro-license framework. I support it because it seems that ports wants it, but if you leave it to me, I'd remove all package-blocking capability and state publicly that LICENSE is a best guess, a courtesy, and not legally binding in any way (and FreeBSD isn't legally responsible in any way). e.g. FYI, AS-IS, no guaranty I am not the person you want leading the license framework if you are a license nut. John ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: LPPL10 license consequences intended? (arabic/arabtex)
On 29 March 2014 11:01:04 GMT+00:00, John Marino freebsd.cont...@marino.st wrote: On 3/29/2014 11:48, Chris Rees wrote: On , John Marino wrote: This licensing topic is actually kind of a big mess that nobody seems to be leading, and it's not even clear if missing licenses is a problem. What's the policy? It would be better to disable the entire framework than continue with this half-support. The policy on the licensing framework is that it was submitted by a GSoC student who has disappeared, and tabthorpe was the only one to step up and take care of the mess. Unfortunately that's the case with a lot of stuff here-- someone drops something, someone else generously picks it up and gets flak for historical issues, as well as not being able to devote 110% of their time to it. Ok, Chris, but that is not what happened here. I noted that tabthorpe committed a license PR without changes 3 years ago and basically from courtesy I offered that he take the first look. He wasn't getting any flak for making a mistake[1]. He also could have said, no thanks which, while disappointing, is his prerogative. The problem was that the offer put the topic in tabthorpe's court and without response the topic died. So the issue isn't lack of action, it's lack of response I guess. [1] It hasn't even fully been established that LPP10 is actually defined incorrectly although it leaning that way If you're interested in the license framework, PLEASE fix it up! That is just the thing, I'm not pro-license framework. I support it because it seems that ports wants it, but if you leave it to me, I'd remove all package-blocking capability and state publicly that LICENSE is a best guess, a courtesy, and not legally binding in any way (and FreeBSD isn't legally responsible in any way). e.g. FYI, AS-IS, no guaranty I am not the person you want leading the license framework if you are a license nut. I think you may have success as far as dports is concerned if you just disable it your end- there is a knob for that. If you think it's inherently bad, you should probably do so-- you wouldn't hear complaints from dports users if you told them. Chris -- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: LPPL10 license consequences intended? (arabic/arabtex)
On 3/29/2014 14:25, Chris Rees wrote: On 29 March 2014 11:01:04 GMT+00:00, John Marino freebsd.cont...@marino.st wrote: I think you may have success as far as dports is concerned if you just disable it your end- there is a knob for that. If you think it's inherently bad, you should probably do so-- you wouldn't hear complaints from dports users if you told them. Yes, I obviously can override whatever I wish but sweeping issues under the rug like this ultimately doesn't benefit me. It's yet more more diff that I have to maintain and have break on me. Now -- will FreeBSD ports committers set all tex ports to LPPL* for consistency and tell the FreeBSD users to build them from source as a consequence? I kind of think having no tex packages in binary form will go over like a lead balloon so I'm not really seeing how your suggestion benefits the FreeBSD community. I was trying to help resolve the problem for everyone, not just DF. John ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: LPPL10 license consequences intended? (arabic/arabtex)
On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 12:27:07PM -0700, Kevin Oberman wrote:
On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 10:29 AM, John Marino
freebsd.cont...@marino.stwrote:
In December, Nicola set the license for Arabtex to LPPL10.
The result is that the port is no longer packagable:
Ignoring arabic/arabtex: License LPPL10 needs confirmation, but
BATCH is defined
build of /usr/ports/arabic/arabtex ended at Mon Mar 17 16:12:44 PDT 2014
From a quick conversation on IRC, I got the idea that the license was
correct and many more Tex packages should also have this license.
If/when that happens, does that mean Tex packages are only to be built
from source?
Is it correct that LPPL10 can't be built in a batch?
The impact for DPorts is pretty high because a requirement for a dport
is that it can produce a binary package so right now it looks like I
have to prune arabtex.
John
Aside from any possible impact of the license, the Makefile contains:
NO_BUILD= yes
so it ill never be packaged and redistributed. This is not an artifact of
the license and I don't know of the license would also block packaging.
I just read over LPPL and it i pretty clear that Compiled Work (i.e. the
binary code) may be redistributed:
3. You may distribute a Compiled Work that has been generated from a
complete, unmodified copy of the Work as distributed under Clause 2
above, as long as that Compiled Work is distributed in such a way that
the recipients may install the Compiled Work on their system exactly
as it would have been installed if they generated a Compiled Work
directly from the Work.
Looking at the port, I see exactly NO modifications to the Work. This
assumes that arabtex is, itself, part of the official Distribution of the
Current Maintainers. It may be that it is, in fact, a Derived Work, not
officially blessed by the Current Maintainers. In that case it could not
be packaged under the terms of clause 3 (quoted above), but other LPPL
ports that are part of the official Work could be.
Derived Work may be redistributed as Compiled Work if certain
conditions are met. See clause 6 which is quite long and I am not confident
that I understand. (In fact, I'm quite confident that I don't fully
understand it.)
IANAL, but the text is pretty clear. I just have not spent the time to
confirm whether arabtex is Work of the project or Derived Work of the
official Distribution. (Note that quoted terms are legally defined terms
in the license.)
--
R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer, Retired
E-mail: rkober...@gmail.com
The usual conditions that to build silently
_LICENSE_PERMS_DEFAULT= dist-mirror dist-sell pkg-mirror pkg-sell auto-accept
The LPPL* stuff has the provisio
_LICENSE_PERMS_LPPL10= dist-mirror dist-sell
Likewise, IANAL, but having read through the license multiple times over
now, it propose that we probably could drop the specific perms in favour of
the default perms.
Anybody who IAL care to comment ;)
Thomas
--
Thomas Abthorpe | FreeBSD Committer
tabtho...@freebsd.org | http://people.freebsd.org/~tabthorpe
pgpOIwDUIUhlI.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: LPPL10 license consequences intended? (arabic/arabtex)
On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 11:34:29AM +0100, John Marino wrote: Don't dish it out if you don't want a response. The fact that you want to put it in these terms tells me everything I need to know. mcl ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: LPPL10 license consequences intended? (arabic/arabtex)
It's been a few days and there's been no response to this. Should I assume that tabthorpe@ read this but is not prepared to review his work? if that is the case, what is the step forward here? All this license stuff is a black box to me and I'd really like to see someone designated as the license guru (and similarly a legal guru) to give definite answers to questions like these. I think that nobody is fully comfortable with this and everyone expects somebody else to take action. I would like a ruling on LPPL10 very soon as it potentially affects many important tex ports. Who is in a position to make the call? I hesitate to mail to portmgr@ because my last 3-4 topics have never been resolved and mostly ignored by them as a group, so saying send a message to portmgr@ is equivalent to telling me to send it to a black hole. (Hopefully with the turnover it's less like this in the future but so far it seems the same as always) I'm not really trying to be provocative but there are a number of somebody really should fix that issues going around but the fixes aren't getting organized so in the end nothing happens (again, I think this is do to everyone expecting somebody to organize/lead the effort before they jump in) Regards, John On 3/23/2014 13:20, John Marino wrote: On 3/23/2014 00:05, Kevin Oberman wrote: On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 2:16 PM, CyberLeo Kitsana cyber...@cyberleo.netwrote: On 03/22/2014 02:27 PM, Kevin Oberman wrote: On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 10:29 AM, John Marino freebsd.cont...@marino.st wrote: In December, Nicola set the license for Arabtex to LPPL10. The result is that the port is no longer packagable: Ignoring arabic/arabtex: License LPPL10 needs confirmation, but BATCH is defined build of /usr/ports/arabic/arabtex ended at Mon Mar 17 16:12:44 PDT 2014 From a quick conversation on IRC, I got the idea that the license was correct and many more Tex packages should also have this license. If/when that happens, does that mean Tex packages are only to be built from source? Is it correct that LPPL10 can't be built in a batch? No. You must accept the license before you can build the port, and you cannot interactively accept a license in non-interactive batch mode. See the commments in /usr/ports/Mk/bsd.licenses.mk for what to set in make.conf to automatically accept certain licenses. I have again looked over the LPPL and there is no language requiring explicit acceptance of the license that I can find. I see nothing about this more restrictive than LGPL or other standard licenses. Am I missing it? According to SVN, tabthorpe@ added these licenses as a result of PR ports/151300 a couple of years ago. Maybe he should weigh in and tell us if making it more restrictive than the GPL was a mistake in the original PR that just carried over? If the latex licenses are indeed not defined correctly, they need to be fixed. I'd think tabthorpe@ would take the first crack at since he added them, but if he doesn't want to, then who should evaluate and potentially fix this? John ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: LPPL10 license consequences intended? (arabic/arabtex)
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 10:33:25AM +0100, John Marino wrote: It's been a few days and there's been no response to this. Should I assume that tabthorpe@ read this but is not prepared to review his work? There is an old adage about assumptions, I am sure you know what it is. Maybe I am just ignoring you. Maybe, just maybe, my mail system has been sideways for a week, and this is the first time I have been able to sit down and properly catch up on emails. You decide what answer suits you best. if that is the case, what is the step forward here? All this license stuff is a black box to me and I'd really like to see someone designated as the license guru (and similarly a legal guru) to give definite answers to questions like these. I think that nobody is fully comfortable with this and everyone expects somebody else to take action. I would like a ruling on LPPL10 very soon as it potentially affects many important tex ports. Who is in a position to make the call? I hesitate to mail to portmgr@ because my last 3-4 topics have never been resolved and mostly ignored by them as a group, so saying send a message to portmgr@ is equivalent to telling me to send it to a black hole. (Hopefully with the turnover it's less like this in the future but so far it seems the same as always) I'm not really trying to be provocative but there are a number of somebody really should fix that issues going around but the fixes aren't getting organized so in the end nothing happens (again, I think this is do to everyone expecting somebody to organize/lead the effort before they jump in) Regards, John Long story short, I have been extremely distracted by life outside of FreeBSD, as a result I will be stepping down from my responsibilities later this spring, as I have not been able to deal with everything on my plate. If you would like to take over the licensing stuff, I will be happy to assign your name to it. Thomas -- Thomas Abthorpe | FreeBSD Committer tabtho...@freebsd.org | http://people.freebsd.org/~tabthorpe pgplug_iK17FY.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: LPPL10 license consequences intended? (arabic/arabtex)
On 3/23/2014 00:05, Kevin Oberman wrote: On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 2:16 PM, CyberLeo Kitsana cyber...@cyberleo.netwrote: On 03/22/2014 02:27 PM, Kevin Oberman wrote: On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 10:29 AM, John Marino freebsd.cont...@marino.st wrote: In December, Nicola set the license for Arabtex to LPPL10. The result is that the port is no longer packagable: Ignoring arabic/arabtex: License LPPL10 needs confirmation, but BATCH is defined build of /usr/ports/arabic/arabtex ended at Mon Mar 17 16:12:44 PDT 2014 From a quick conversation on IRC, I got the idea that the license was correct and many more Tex packages should also have this license. If/when that happens, does that mean Tex packages are only to be built from source? Is it correct that LPPL10 can't be built in a batch? No. You must accept the license before you can build the port, and you cannot interactively accept a license in non-interactive batch mode. See the commments in /usr/ports/Mk/bsd.licenses.mk for what to set in make.conf to automatically accept certain licenses. I have again looked over the LPPL and there is no language requiring explicit acceptance of the license that I can find. I see nothing about this more restrictive than LGPL or other standard licenses. Am I missing it? According to SVN, tabthorpe@ added these licenses as a result of PR ports/151300 a couple of years ago. Maybe he should weigh in and tell us if making it more restrictive than the GPL was a mistake in the original PR that just carried over? If the latex licenses are indeed not defined correctly, they need to be fixed. I'd think tabthorpe@ would take the first crack at since he added them, but if he doesn't want to, then who should evaluate and potentially fix this? John ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: LPPL10 license consequences intended? (arabic/arabtex)
On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 10:29 AM, John Marino freebsd.cont...@marino.stwrote: In December, Nicola set the license for Arabtex to LPPL10. The result is that the port is no longer packagable: Ignoring arabic/arabtex: License LPPL10 needs confirmation, but BATCH is defined build of /usr/ports/arabic/arabtex ended at Mon Mar 17 16:12:44 PDT 2014 From a quick conversation on IRC, I got the idea that the license was correct and many more Tex packages should also have this license. If/when that happens, does that mean Tex packages are only to be built from source? Is it correct that LPPL10 can't be built in a batch? The impact for DPorts is pretty high because a requirement for a dport is that it can produce a binary package so right now it looks like I have to prune arabtex. John Aside from any possible impact of the license, the Makefile contains: NO_BUILD= yes so it ill never be packaged and redistributed. This is not an artifact of the license and I don't know of the license would also block packaging. I just read over LPPL and it i pretty clear that Compiled Work (i.e. the binary code) may be redistributed: 3. You may distribute a Compiled Work that has been generated from a complete, unmodified copy of the Work as distributed under Clause 2 above, as long as that Compiled Work is distributed in such a way that the recipients may install the Compiled Work on their system exactly as it would have been installed if they generated a Compiled Work directly from the Work. Looking at the port, I see exactly NO modifications to the Work. This assumes that arabtex is, itself, part of the official Distribution of the Current Maintainers. It may be that it is, in fact, a Derived Work, not officially blessed by the Current Maintainers. In that case it could not be packaged under the terms of clause 3 (quoted above), but other LPPL ports that are part of the official Work could be. Derived Work may be redistributed as Compiled Work if certain conditions are met. See clause 6 which is quite long and I am not confident that I understand. (In fact, I'm quite confident that I don't fully understand it.) IANAL, but the text is pretty clear. I just have not spent the time to confirm whether arabtex is Work of the project or Derived Work of the official Distribution. (Note that quoted terms are legally defined terms in the license.) -- R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer, Retired E-mail: rkober...@gmail.com ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: LPPL10 license consequences intended? (arabic/arabtex)
On 03/22/2014 02:27 PM, Kevin Oberman wrote: On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 10:29 AM, John Marino freebsd.cont...@marino.stwrote: In December, Nicola set the license for Arabtex to LPPL10. The result is that the port is no longer packagable: Ignoring arabic/arabtex: License LPPL10 needs confirmation, but BATCH is defined build of /usr/ports/arabic/arabtex ended at Mon Mar 17 16:12:44 PDT 2014 From a quick conversation on IRC, I got the idea that the license was correct and many more Tex packages should also have this license. If/when that happens, does that mean Tex packages are only to be built from source? Is it correct that LPPL10 can't be built in a batch? No. You must accept the license before you can build the port, and you cannot interactively accept a license in non-interactive batch mode. See the commments in /usr/ports/Mk/bsd.licenses.mk for what to set in make.conf to automatically accept certain licenses. Aside from any possible impact of the license, the Makefile contains: NO_BUILD= yes so it ill never be packaged and redistributed. This is not an artifact of the license and I don't know of the license would also block packaging. NO_BUILD means only that the configure and compile steps are not necessary for this port. The option you're thinking of is NO_PACKAGE. http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/porters-handbook/porting-restrictions.html -- Fuzzy love, -CyberLeo Technical Administrator CyberLeo.Net Webhosting http://www.CyberLeo.Net cyber...@cyberleo.net Furry Peace! - http://www.fur.com/peace/ ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: LPPL10 license consequences intended? (arabic/arabtex)
On 3/22/2014 22:16, CyberLeo Kitsana wrote: On 03/22/2014 02:27 PM, Kevin Oberman wrote: On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 10:29 AM, John Marino freebsd.cont...@marino.stwrote: In December, Nicola set the license for Arabtex to LPPL10. The result is that the port is no longer packagable: Ignoring arabic/arabtex: License LPPL10 needs confirmation, but BATCH is defined build of /usr/ports/arabic/arabtex ended at Mon Mar 17 16:12:44 PDT 2014 From a quick conversation on IRC, I got the idea that the license was correct and many more Tex packages should also have this license. If/when that happens, does that mean Tex packages are only to be built from source? Is it correct that LPPL10 can't be built in a batch? No. You must accept the license before you can build the port, and you cannot interactively accept a license in non-interactive batch mode. See the commments in /usr/ports/Mk/bsd.licenses.mk for what to set in make.conf to automatically accept certain licenses. I guess I should have been more clear. I know LPPL10 is defined in such a way that packaging in batch mode is not possible. I was questioning if the definition was actually correct, that this Tex port and every Tex port like it will be unpackagable. Kevin Oberman wrote: I just read over LPPL and it i pretty clear that Compiled Work (i.e. the binary code) may be redistributed: 3. You may distribute a Compiled Work that has been generated from a complete, unmodified copy of the Work as distributed under Clause 2 above, as long as that Compiled Work is distributed in such a way that the recipients may install the Compiled Work on their system exactly as it would have been installed if they generated a Compiled Work directly from the Work. Looking at the port, I see exactly NO modifications to the Work. This assumes that arabtex is, itself, part of the official Distribution of the Current Maintainers. It may be that it is, in fact, a Derived Work, not officially blessed by the Current Maintainers. In that case it could not be packaged under the terms of clause 3 (quoted above), but other LPPL ports that are part of the official Work could be. Derived Work may be redistributed as Compiled Work if certain conditions are met. See clause 6 which is quite long and I am not confident that I understand. (In fact, I'm quite confident that I don't fully understand it.) IANAL, but the text is pretty clear. I just have not spent the time to confirm whether arabtex is Work of the project or Derived Work of the official Distribution. (Note that quoted terms are legally defined terms in the license.) Okay, this would imply that LPPL10 either has incorrect default definitions or that a port like Arabtex may have to specifically define it's ability to be packaged assuming it's unmodified from the original work. If the latter is true, every port that uses LPPL10 will need to specifically check that... Thanks for the thoughtful comments so far. John ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: LPPL10 license consequences intended? (arabic/arabtex)
On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 2:16 PM, CyberLeo Kitsana cyber...@cyberleo.netwrote: On 03/22/2014 02:27 PM, Kevin Oberman wrote: On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 10:29 AM, John Marino freebsd.cont...@marino.st wrote: In December, Nicola set the license for Arabtex to LPPL10. The result is that the port is no longer packagable: Ignoring arabic/arabtex: License LPPL10 needs confirmation, but BATCH is defined build of /usr/ports/arabic/arabtex ended at Mon Mar 17 16:12:44 PDT 2014 From a quick conversation on IRC, I got the idea that the license was correct and many more Tex packages should also have this license. If/when that happens, does that mean Tex packages are only to be built from source? Is it correct that LPPL10 can't be built in a batch? No. You must accept the license before you can build the port, and you cannot interactively accept a license in non-interactive batch mode. See the commments in /usr/ports/Mk/bsd.licenses.mk for what to set in make.conf to automatically accept certain licenses. I have again looked over the LPPL and there is no language requiring explicit acceptance of the license that I can find. I see nothing about this more restrictive than LGPL or other standard licenses. Am I missing it? -- Fuzzy love, -CyberLeo Technical Administrator CyberLeo.Net Webhosting http://www.CyberLeo.Net cyber...@cyberleo.net Furry Peace! - http://www.fur.com/peace/ -- R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer, Retired E-mail: rkober...@gmail.com ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: LPPL10 license consequences intended? (arabic/arabtex)
On 03/22/2014 06:05 PM, Kevin Oberman wrote: On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 2:16 PM, CyberLeo Kitsana cyber...@cyberleo.netwrote: On 03/22/2014 02:27 PM, Kevin Oberman wrote: On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 10:29 AM, John Marino freebsd.cont...@marino.st wrote: snip Is it correct that LPPL10 can't be built in a batch? No. You must accept the license before you can build the port, and you cannot interactively accept a license in non-interactive batch mode. snip I have again looked over the LPPL and there is no language requiring explicit acceptance of the license that I can find. I see nothing about this more restrictive than LGPL or other standard licenses. Am I missing it? I was elucidating from the point of view of the ports license infrastructure, not the point of view of a lawyer. The code expects you to accept the license, and will not proceed until you do. It's not my call whether or not it is legal for FreeBSD to accept this license on behalf of the user. -- Fuzzy love, -CyberLeo Technical Administrator CyberLeo.Net Webhosting http://www.CyberLeo.Net cyber...@cyberleo.net Furry Peace! - http://www.fur.com/peace/ ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
