LPPL10 license consequences intended? (arabic/arabtex)

John Marino freebsd.contact at marino.st
Sat Mar 29 13:35:58 UTC 2014

On 3/29/2014 14:25, Chris Rees wrote:
> On 29 March 2014 11:01:04 GMT+00:00, John Marino
> <freebsd.contact at marino.st> wrote:

> I think you may have success as far as dports is concerned if you
> just disable it your end- there is a knob for that.
> If you think it's inherently bad, you should probably do so-- you
> wouldn't hear complaints from dports users if you told them.

Yes, I obviously can override whatever I wish but sweeping issues under
the rug like this ultimately doesn't benefit me.  It's yet more more
"diff" that I have to maintain and have break on me.

Now -- will FreeBSD ports committers set all tex ports to LPPL* for
consistency and tell the FreeBSD users to build them from source as a
consequence?  I kind of think having no tex packages in binary form will
go over like a lead balloon so I'm not really seeing how your suggestion
benefits the FreeBSD community.

I was trying to help resolve the problem for everyone, not just DF.

More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list