LPPL10 license consequences intended? (arabic/arabtex)
cyberleo at cyberleo.net
Sat Mar 22 21:16:36 UTC 2014
On 03/22/2014 02:27 PM, 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?
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.
> 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.
NO_BUILD means only that the configure and compile steps are not
necessary for this port.
The option you're thinking of is NO_PACKAGE.
<CyberLeo at CyberLeo.Net>
Furry Peace! - http://www.fur.com/peace/
More information about the freebsd-ports