From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A13C1138010 for ; Mon, 24 Sep 2012 07:03:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7A47121C02B; Mon, 24 Sep 2012 07:03:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from a1iwww1.kph.uni-mainz.de (a1iwww1.kph.uni-mainz.de [134.93.134.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E27221C007 for ; Mon, 24 Sep 2012 07:02:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de (a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de [134.93.134.92]) by a1iwww1.kph.uni-mainz.de (8.14.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id q8O72cm6027043 for ; Mon, 24 Sep 2012 09:02:38 +0200 Received: from a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de (8.14.5/8.14.2) with ESMTP id q8O72c2P029141; Mon, 24 Sep 2012 09:02:38 +0200 Received: (from ulm@localhost) by a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de (8.14.5/8.14.5/Submit) id q8O72cKo029139; Mon, 24 Sep 2012 09:02:38 +0200 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <20576.1421.973743.531319@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 09:02:37 +0200 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Clarify the "as-is" license? In-Reply-To: References: <20574.60112.58705.360983@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <20574.64197.443629.447483@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <505EFC3B.30005@gentoo.org> <20575.33063.481247.788747@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> X-Mailer: VM 8.2.0b under 23.4.2 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) From: Ulrich Mueller X-Archives-Salt: 34ea8dc4-45ab-4099-b7a9-99a685d9fb99 X-Archives-Hash: e84da5affd7ebfb28f4dd45a3131b239 >>>>> On Sun, 23 Sep 2012, Rich Freeman wrote: >> - net-misc/ntp: "as-is" looks fine as main license, although some >> parts of the code are under different licenses like GPL (but I >> haven't checked in detail what gets installed). > Uh, if we're distributing the sources, and they contain GPL content, > then the only valid answer is GPL, Unfortunately, it's not clear from our documentation if the LICENSE variable applies to the source tarball or to the files that the package installs on the user's system. I tend to interpret it in the latter sense. To illustrate why, let's look at sci-visualization/gnuplot-4.6.0 as an example: LICENSE="gnuplot GPL-2 bitmap? ( free-noncomm )" The bulk of the package is free software, distributed under the gnuplot license or the GPL-2. However, there's an additional notice with a no-sale clause in a single source file (src/bitmap.c). If LICENSE applies to installed files, than we can disable the functionality via USE=-bitmap and we're done. However, if we say that LICENSE covers the source tarball, then we either need to change it to an unconditional "gnuplot GPL-2 free-noncomm", which has the consequence that gnuplot is no longer installable for users who have ACCEPT_LICENSE="-* @FREE". Or, we must no longer distribute pristine source from upstream, but repack them into a new tarball with bitmap.c removed. This would have to be done for every release, which isn't feasible. Similar reasoning applies to the various Linux kernel packages that have LICENSE="GPL-2 !deblob? ( freedist )". > or nomirror. That's a different issue. In the case of RESTRICT="mirror" it is clear that it applies to the sources that we distribute. Ulrich