| 1 |
>>>>> On Thu, 7 Jan 2010, Hanno Böck wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
>> Licenses for Works of Opinion and Judgment (maybe omit this group?): |
| 4 |
>> |
| 5 |
>> CCPL-Attribution-NoDerivs-3.0 (there's only 2.5 in ${PORTDIR}/licenses/) |
| 6 |
>> ("GNU Verbatim Copying License" - not yet in ${PORTDIR}/licenses/) |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
> I think they don't belong there - no matter what the fsf thinks |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Agreed. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> (I think their views about different freedoms on software and on |
| 13 |
> documents are a bit weird), I think we should have a "free" license |
| 14 |
> set which guarantees the four freedoms, no matter if it's software |
| 15 |
> or documentation. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
There are some borderline cases however. For example, man-pages-posix |
| 18 |
contains the following clause: "Modifications to the text are |
| 19 |
permitted so long as any conflicts with the standard are clearly |
| 20 |
marked as such in the text." which is perfectly reasonable in this |
| 21 |
special case, but makes it non-free if one follows the definition |
| 22 |
blindly. (And indeed, Debian has these man pages in "non-free" which |
| 23 |
is stupid, IMHO.) |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
So the plan is: |
| 26 |
- Add GPL-1 and LGPL-2 to @GPL-COMPATIBLE |
| 27 |
- Add a new group "@FSF-APPROVED-OTHER" containing the following: |
| 28 |
Arphic |
| 29 |
CCPL-Attribution-2.0 |
| 30 |
CCPL-Attribution-ShareAlike-2.0 |
| 31 |
DSL |
| 32 |
FDL-1.1 FDL-1.2 FDL-1.3 |
| 33 |
FreeArt |
| 34 |
GPL-1 GPL-2 GPL-3 |
| 35 |
OFL-1.1 |
| 36 |
OPL |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
If there are no objections, I'll commit this in the next days. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
Ulrich |
Archives