LPPL10 license consequences intended? (arabic/arabtex)

[Kevin Oberman]

On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 2:16 PM, CyberLeo Kitsana <cyberleo at cyberleo.net>wrote:

> 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.
>

I have again looked over the LPPL and there is no language requiring
explicit acceptance of the license that I can find. I see nothing about
this more restrictive than LGPL or other standard licenses.

Am I missing it?

> --
> Fuzzy love,
> -CyberLeo
> Technical Administrator
> CyberLeo.Net Webhosting
> http://www.CyberLeo.Net
> <CyberLeo at CyberLeo.Net>
>
> Furry Peace! - http://www.fur.com/peace/
>

-- 
R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer, Retired
E-mail: rkoberman at gmail.com