| 1 |
>>>>> On Mon, 24 Sep 2012, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
>> I tend to interpret it in the latter sense. To illustrate why, let's |
| 4 |
>> look at sci-visualization/gnuplot-4.6.0 as an example: |
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
>> LICENSE="gnuplot GPL-2 bitmap? ( free-noncomm )" |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
>> The bulk of the package is free software, distributed under the |
| 9 |
>> gnuplot license or the GPL-2. However, there's an additional notice |
| 10 |
>> with a no-sale clause in a single source file (src/bitmap.c). |
| 11 |
>> If LICENSE applies to installed files, than we can disable the |
| 12 |
>> functionality via USE=-bitmap and we're done. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> I guess we can get away with redistributing the source files each |
| 15 |
> under their respective license, since there is no "derived work" at |
| 16 |
> this point. However, any binaries built from such a thing would not |
| 17 |
> be redistributable. None of those licenses are GPL-compatible. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
This is not a problem here. Gnuplot itself is licensed under the |
| 20 |
gnuplot license. The GPL licensed parts (e.g. Gnuplot mode for Emacs) |
| 21 |
are not linked with it but installed separately. The GPL doesn't |
| 22 |
forbid mere accumulation of things, so redistribution of the binary |
| 23 |
isn't an issue. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
> [...] |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
> Not necessarily the end of the world to be honest - how many things |
| 28 |
> do we have in the tree for which upstream only has an scm and no |
| 29 |
> source tarballs, so we have to roll our own on every release anyway |
| 30 |
> due to the prohibition on live scm packages being unmasked? |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Too many already, so we shouldn't add more when it's not necessary. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Ulrich |
Archives