From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Mar 6 22:16:55 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5BECB3E0 for ; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:16:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-in6.apple.com (mail-out6.apple.com [17.151.62.28]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2F2B5BBF for ; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:16:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from relay8.apple.com (relay8.apple.com [17.128.113.102]) by mail-in6.apple.com (Apple Secure Mail Relay) with SMTP id F5.26.27784.0572AF45; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 14:16:48 -0800 (PST) X-AuditID: 11973e15-f79186d000006c88-93-54fa27508799 Received: from [17.149.231.242] (Unknown_Domain [17.149.231.242]) (using TLS with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by relay8.apple.com (Apple SCV relay) with SMTP id 4A.4B.23906.5572AF45; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 14:16:53 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2070.6\)) Subject: Re: License compatibility issues? From: Charles Swiger In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 14:16:48 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <0479E612-3447-44C8-B9D0-563B9472C477@mac.com> References: To: Mike Meyer X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2070.6) X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFlrDLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUi2FCYphug/ivEoG+7nsWmw28ZLdZv6Gdx YPKY8Wk+i8eOwzPZA5iiuGxSUnMyy1KL9O0SuDLa301mK/jEUXHs9TrWBsZu9i5GTg4JAROJ 3oOf2CBsMYkL99YD2VwcQgL7GCVmPuxmhCl6ueErWJGQwHQmiUu/YkBsZgEtiRv/XjKB2LwC BhJzT30Bs4WB4k+PvQKyOTjYBNQkJkzkAQlzCgRKtDy7A1bCIqAicf3VYkaIMbISz9dvZYOw tSWWLXzNDNLKK2Al8WmlB8TWAIlrp5tYQWwRATmJs4/fMoKUSAjIS/RsSge5WELgLavEkplb WCcwCs1CctwsJMfNQrJhASPzKkah3MTMHN3MPDO9xIKCnFS95PzcTYyg4J1uJ7qD8cwqq0OM AhyMSjy8HVI/Q4RYE8uKK3MPMUpzsCiJ89q+AAoJpCeWpGanphakFsUXleakFh9iZOLglGpg bD/XUBCjE8qTzal1ZInltbMdyyZFi5ocTgu22sD34+3RpD03+udEJLn0sl7s2j1v69l792Mf Ne3fEq0VyVS3uuDkp+r7Z9rkkrb1fpe9HHiylfPp/xreFU7P7kg8XbjNbDV7/nqfbMH7j5+8 +2HUfHLdoYhrydx7/u6u4P/7w/1uxM4vkoIvnimxFGckGmoxFxUnAgCCajDcPwIAAA== X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFprPLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUiOPX5J91Q9V8hBvPfqVhsOvyW0WL9hn4W ByaPGZ/ms3jsODyTPYApissmJTUnsyy1SN8ugSuj/d1ktoJPHBXHXq9jbWDsZu9i5OSQEDCR eLnhKxuELSZx4d56MFtIYDqTxKVfMSA2s4CWxI1/L5lAbF4BA4m5p76A2cJA8afHXgHZHBxs AmoSEybygIQ5BQIlWp7dASthEVCRuP5qMSPEGFmJ5+u3skHY2hLLFr5mBmnlFbCS+LTSA2Jr gMS1002sILaIgJzE2cdvGUFKJATkJXo2pU9g5J+F5J5ZSO6ZhWToAkbmVYwCRak5iZUWeokF BTmpesn5uZsYQcHWUJi2g7FpudUhRgEORiUe3g6pnyFCrIllxZW5hxglOJiVRHinKv8KEeJN SaysSi3Kjy8qzUktPsQozcGiJM678+KPECGB9MSS1OzU1ILUIpgsEwenVAOj8YbcDou47JY7 rFuuJeTklueW5a/ROf24p3H71rT2tRWqz6a1HnA8ahis51J7Nuh9hZJGoURzzcszH6VdrnzJ rd63QGbW/6Nv7G41vNgdvPLMA+G+zftn6HXt6lRhVzi97XVcjN0EP+P7G468yLz9NtGl1/Hz rluH9SX/Z1l//vBVu23vYtubSizFGYmGWsxFxYkAu6zwFTICAAA= Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2015 22:16:55 -0000 On Mar 6, 2015, at 1:39 PM, Mike Meyer wrote: > After a discussion on another list, I'm wondering if anyone has ever = done > anything to verify that the license requirements of the dependencies = of a > package (I don't know of any licenses that would cause problems for a = port, > as those don't involve distribution of derived works in the form of a > binary) are actually met? Yes. It is considered the responsibility of the port maintainer to set NO_PACKAGE, RESTRICTED, etc appropriately for the default port = options so that the precompiled packages provided by the FreeBSD project are legally OK to redistribute. If an end-user chooses to select different dependencies, then they are responsible for those choices. > For instance, a port licensed under the EPL that is statically linked = with a > GPL'ed library would produce a binary that couldn't be legally = distributed. That is a concern, but end-users of the ports can still compile the two = together and use the result, even if they cannot legally redistribute the = combination to others. Regards, --=20 -Chuck