LPPL10 license consequences intended? (arabic/arabtex)

John Marino freebsd.contact at marino.st
Fri Mar 28 09:34:07 UTC 2014

It's been a few days and there's been no response to this.
Should I assume that tabthorpe@ read this but is not prepared to review
his work?

if that is the case, what is the step forward here?  All this license
stuff is a black box to me and I'd really like to see someone designated
as the license "guru" (and similarly a legal guru) to give definite
answers to questions like these.  I think that nobody is fully
comfortable with this and everyone expects somebody else to take action.

I would like a ruling on LPPL10 very soon as it potentially affects many
important tex ports.  Who is in a position to make the call?  I hesitate
to mail to portmgr@ because my last 3-4 topics have never been resolved
and mostly ignored by them as a group, so saying "send a message to
portmgr@" is equivalent to telling me to send it to a black hole.
(Hopefully with the turnover it's less like this in the future but so
far it seems the same as always)

I'm not really trying to be provocative but there are a number of
"somebody really should fix that" issues going around but the fixes
aren't getting organized so in the end nothing happens (again, I think
this is do to everyone expecting somebody to organize/lead the effort
before they jump in)


On 3/23/2014 13:20, John Marino wrote:
> On 3/23/2014 00:05, Kevin Oberman wrote:
>> 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?
> According to SVN, tabthorpe@ added these licenses as a result of PR
> ports/151300 a couple of years ago.  Maybe he should weigh in and tell
> us if making it more restrictive than the GPL was a mistake in the
> original PR that just carried over?
> If the latex licenses are indeed not defined correctly, they need to be
> fixed.  I'd think tabthorpe@ would take the first crack at since he
> added them, but if he doesn't want to, then who should evaluate and
> potentially fix this?
> John

More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list