www/joomla3 is no longer in the FreeBSD pkg repo

[Chris]

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? :-)

--Chris
> 
> 
> Kind regards,
> Patrick
> --