1 |
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 3:02 AM, Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> Unfortunately, it's not clear from our documentation if the LICENSE |
3 |
> variable applies to the source tarball or to the files that the |
4 |
> package installs on the user's system. |
5 |
|
6 |
Hmm, if these aren't the same, then more likely than not something is |
7 |
wrong, but perhaps we'll have to confront this issue at some point. |
8 |
|
9 |
> |
10 |
> I tend to interpret it in the latter sense. To illustrate why, let's |
11 |
> look at sci-visualization/gnuplot-4.6.0 as an example: |
12 |
> |
13 |
> LICENSE="gnuplot GPL-2 bitmap? ( free-noncomm )" |
14 |
> |
15 |
> The bulk of the package is free software, distributed under the |
16 |
> gnuplot license or the GPL-2. However, there's an additional notice |
17 |
> with a no-sale clause in a single source file (src/bitmap.c). |
18 |
> If LICENSE applies to installed files, than we can disable the |
19 |
> functionality via USE=-bitmap and we're done. |
20 |
|
21 |
I guess we can get away with redistributing the source files each |
22 |
under their respective license, since there is no "derived work" at |
23 |
this point. However, any binaries built from such a thing would not |
24 |
be redistributable. None of those licenses are GPL-compatible. |
25 |
|
26 |
> |
27 |
> However, if we say that LICENSE covers the source tarball, then we |
28 |
> either need to change it to an unconditional "gnuplot GPL-2 |
29 |
> free-noncomm", which has the consequence that gnuplot is no longer |
30 |
> installable for users who have ACCEPT_LICENSE="-* @FREE". |
31 |
|
32 |
Here is the thing - suppose somebody runs a Gentoo mirror but has ads |
33 |
on their page and is a commercial organization. They can't even |
34 |
MIRROR that source legally because of the presence of that one file, |
35 |
unless its license allows for-profit redistribution of the source. |
36 |
|
37 |
> |
38 |
> Or, we must no longer distribute pristine source from upstream, but |
39 |
> repack them into a new tarball with bitmap.c removed. This would have |
40 |
> to be done for every release, which isn't feasible. |
41 |
|
42 |
Not necessarily the end of the world to be honest - how many things do |
43 |
we have in the tree for which upstream only has an scm and no source |
44 |
tarballs, so we have to roll our own on every release anyway due to |
45 |
the prohibition on live scm packages being unmasked? |
46 |
|
47 |
> |
48 |
> Similar reasoning applies to the various Linux kernel packages that |
49 |
> have LICENSE="GPL-2 !deblob? ( freedist )". |
50 |
> |
51 |
>> or nomirror. |
52 |
> |
53 |
> That's a different issue. In the case of RESTRICT="mirror" it is clear |
54 |
> that it applies to the sources that we distribute. |
55 |
|
56 |
I think the key is to make sure that the sources at least can be |
57 |
distributed without getting anybody into trouble. If so we don't need |
58 |
to restrict them. However, I don't think the final thing can be @FREE |
59 |
- it isn't binary redistributable as the final built code isn't |
60 |
licensed at all. We should point this out somehow. |
61 |
|
62 |
Rich |