www/joomla3 is no longer in the FreeBSD pkg repo

[Chris]

On 2021-03-04 08:39, Chris Rees wrote:
> 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 .
> 
Brilliant!

Thanks! :-)

--Chris
> Chris