LPPL10 license consequences intended? (arabic/arabtex)

[Thomas Abthorpe]

On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 12:27:07PM -0700, Kevin Oberman wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 10:29 AM, John Marino <freebsd.contact at marino.st>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?
> > The impact for DPorts is pretty high because a requirement for a dport
> > is that it can produce a binary package so right now it looks like I
> > have to prune arabtex.
> >
> > John
> >
> 
> Aside from any possible impact of the license, the Makefile contains:
> NO_BUILD=       yes
> so it ill never be packaged and redistributed. This is not an artifact of
> the license and I don't know of the license would also block packaging.
> 
> 
> I just read over LPPL and it i pretty clear that "Compiled Work" (i.e. the
> binary code) may be redistributed:
> 
> 3.  You may distribute a Compiled Work that has been generated from a
> complete, unmodified copy of the Work as distributed under Clause 2
> above, as long as that Compiled Work is distributed in such a way that
> the recipients may install the Compiled Work on their system exactly
> as it would have been installed if they generated a Compiled Work
> directly from the Work.
> 
> Looking at the port, I see exactly NO modifications to the "Work". This
> assumes that arabtex is, itself, part of the official "Distribution" of the
> "Current Maintainers". It may be that it is, in fact, a "Derived Work", not
> officially blessed by the "Current Maintainers". In that case it could not
> be packaged under the terms of clause 3 (quoted above), but other LPPL
> ports that are part of the official "Work" could be.
> 
> "Derived Work" may be redistributed as "Compiled Work" if certain
> conditions are met. See clause 6 which is quite long and I am not confident
> that I understand. (In fact, I'm quite confident that I don't fully
> understand it.)
> 
> IANAL, but the text is pretty clear. I just have not spent the time to
> confirm whether arabtex is "Work" of the project or "Derived Work" of the
> official "Distribution". (Note that quoted terms are legally defined terms
> in the license.)
> -- 
> R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer, Retired
> E-mail: rkoberman at gmail.com

The usual conditions that to build silently

_LICENSE_PERMS_DEFAULT= dist-mirror dist-sell pkg-mirror pkg-sell auto-accept

The LPPL* stuff has the provisio

_LICENSE_PERMS_LPPL10=  dist-mirror dist-sell

Likewise, IANAL, but having read through the license multiple times over
now, it propose that we probably could drop the specific perms in favour of
the default perms.

Anybody who IAL care to comment ;)


Thomas

-- 
Thomas Abthorpe		| FreeBSD Committer
tabthorpe at FreeBSD.org	| http://people.freebsd.org/~tabthorpe
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 473 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/attachments/20140329/0f4bdb3c/attachment.sig>