From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Mar 23 12:21:24 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6A71035E; Sun, 23 Mar 2014 12:21:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from shepard.synsport.net (mail.synsport.com [208.69.230.148]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3F79E269; Sun, 23 Mar 2014 12:21:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.0.20] (unknown [130.255.19.191]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by shepard.synsport.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07442435C7; Sun, 23 Mar 2014 07:21:05 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <532ED19F.1090100@marino.st> Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2014 13:20:47 +0100 From: John Marino User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Kevin Oberman , CyberLeo Kitsana Subject: Re: LPPL10 license consequences intended? (arabic/arabtex) References: <532DC88A.7010104@marino.st> <532DFDB2.1090200@cyberleo.net> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "ports@FreeBSD.org Ports" , Nicola Vitale , tabthorpe@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list Reply-To: marino@freebsd.org List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2014 12:21:24 -0000 On 3/23/2014 00:05, Kevin Oberman wrote: > On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 2:16 PM, CyberLeo Kitsana wrote: > >> On 03/22/2014 02:27 PM, Kevin Oberman wrote: >>> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 10:29 AM, John Marino >> 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