www/joomla3 is no longer in the FreeBSD pkg repo

[Chris Rees]

On 04/03/2021 16:16, Chris wrote:
> On 2021-03-04 00:50, Patrick M. Hausen wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>>> Am 04.03.2021 um 02:17 schrieb Chris Rees <crees at bayofrum.net>:
>>> The problem is, that although the php80 flavour does not depend on 
>>> pecl-pdflib, the default flavour does,
>>> which means that the package will not be built as it you have to 
>>> agree to pecl-pdflib's licence.
>>
>> I am not a lawyer. That being said I have done some homework and did 
>> a lot if reading
>> in February 2020. Sent my findings to the port maintainer of 
>> print/pdflib, but did not get
>> a response, unfortunately.
>>
>> My conclusion is that you don't need to agree to PDFlib GmbH's 
>> license, because all
>> of the legalese on their home page applies to a completely different 
>> product than the
>> one used by pecl-pdflib.
>>
>> But step by step ...
>>
>> 1.    pecl-pdflib is published under the PHP license, so it is 
>> clearly open source.
>> 2.    The FreeBSD port is not based on pdflib, but pdflib-lite - this 
>> is the crucial point.
>> 3.    pdflib-lite is a product abandoned by PDFlib GmbH in 2011.
>> 4.    pdflib-lite archives come with an open source license bundled 
>> in the archive.
>> 5.    This is the only license applicable to our case. All the other 
>> licensing stuff on their
>>     website applies to pdflib - *which is a completely different 
>> product*.
>> 6.    The license bundled with pdflib-lite explicitly permits the 
>> distribution of binaries as
>>     long as the license document and some other auxiliary files are 
>> included.
>> 7.    The port does this and puts the necessary documents in 
>> /usr/local/share/doc/pdflib.
>>
>> You won't find any information about pdflib-lite on PDFlib GmbH's 
>> website, because
>> they pulled it. Nonetheless the source is "out there", bundled with a 
>> permissive license
>> which cannot be taken back.
>>
>> So the entire discussion is moot - as long as pecl-pdflib can be 
>> built with pdflib-lite.
>>
>> The problem with the port/packages infrastructure is that this line in
>> ports/print/pdflib/Makefile
>> is nonsense, IMHO:
>>
>>     RESTRICTED=     Many odd restrictions on usage and distribution
>>
>>
>> Download the pdflib-lite tarball and see the documents for yourself. 
>> I am repeating myself:
>> all the legalese on the PDFlib GmbH website *does not apply* to this 
>> product (pdflib-lite).
> I needed the pdflib-lite for a script I cobbled up to batch convert 
> to/from text/pdf
> a couple of years ago. I can confirm that the lib is with a 
> *non*restrictive license.
> My humble suggestion;
> Can't we please simply create a pdflib-lite port, and be done with all 
> this and related? :-)
>
The pdflib that we have in the port *is* pdflib-lite :)   Hence my 
proposed review to ale at .

Chris