Re: [gentoo-dev] Documentation licenses and license_groups
On Thu, 7 Jan 2010, Hanno Böck wrote:
- Add GPL-1 and LGPL-2 to @GPL-COMPATIBLE
- Add a new group @FSF-APPROVED-OTHER containing the following:
Arphic
CCPL-Attribution-2.0
CCPL-Attribution-ShareAlike-2.0
DSL
FDL-1.1 FDL-1.2 FDL-1.3
FreeArt
GPL-1 GPL-2 GPL-3
OFL-1.1
OPL
I already went ahead and committed two new sets - FREE-DOCUMENTS and
MISC-FREE.
The above ones could probably be all added to FREE-DOCUMENTS.
Done, but I kept the FSF-APPROVED-OTHER set separate so that following
upstream changes will be easier.
And thanks for adding the FREE set and its FREE-{SOFTWARE,DOCUMENTS}
subsets. Accepting @FREE is enough for all packages in stage3, except
for man-pages-posix.
Not sure what we should do about this one. The crucial sentence is:
,
| Modifications to the text are permitted so long as any conflicts
| with the standard are clearly marked as such in the text.
`
Any opinions?
Ulrich
Re: [gentoo-dev] Documentation licenses and license_groups
Ulrich Mueller wrote: Not sure what we should do about this one. The crucial sentence is: , | Modifications to the text are permitted so long as any conflicts | with the standard are clearly marked as such in the text. ` Any opinions? It seems fine to me. I think it's somewhat analogous to how a modified TeX file must have a new name: it's a minor annoyance, but it doesn't particularly restrict the end result.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Documentation licenses and license_groups
Am Dienstag 05 Januar 2010 schrieb Ulrich Mueller:
Licenses for Works of Opinion and Judgment (maybe omit this group?):
CCPL-Attribution-NoDerivs-3.0 (there's only 2.5 in ${PORTDIR}/licenses/)
(GNU Verbatim Copying License - not yet in ${PORTDIR}/licenses/)
I think they don't belong there - no matter what the fsf thinks (I think their
views about different freedoms on software and on documents are a bit weird),
I think we should have a free license set which guarantees the four
freedoms, no matter if it's software or documentation.
--
Hanno Böck Blog: http://www.hboeck.de/
GPG: 3DBD3B20 Jabber/Mail:ha...@hboeck.de
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Documentation licenses and license_groups
On Thu, 7 Jan 2010, Hanno Böck wrote:
Licenses for Works of Opinion and Judgment (maybe omit this group?):
CCPL-Attribution-NoDerivs-3.0 (there's only 2.5 in ${PORTDIR}/licenses/)
(GNU Verbatim Copying License - not yet in ${PORTDIR}/licenses/)
I think they don't belong there - no matter what the fsf thinks
Agreed.
(I think their views about different freedoms on software and on
documents are a bit weird), I think we should have a free license
set which guarantees the four freedoms, no matter if it's software
or documentation.
There are some borderline cases however. For example, man-pages-posix
contains the following clause: Modifications to the text are
permitted so long as any conflicts with the standard are clearly
marked as such in the text. which is perfectly reasonable in this
special case, but makes it non-free if one follows the definition
blindly. (And indeed, Debian has these man pages in non-free which
is stupid, IMHO.)
So the plan is:
- Add GPL-1 and LGPL-2 to @GPL-COMPATIBLE
- Add a new group @FSF-APPROVED-OTHER containing the following:
Arphic
CCPL-Attribution-2.0
CCPL-Attribution-ShareAlike-2.0
DSL
FDL-1.1 FDL-1.2 FDL-1.3
FreeArt
GPL-1 GPL-2 GPL-3
OFL-1.1
OPL
If there are no objections, I'll commit this in the next days.
Ulrich
Re: [gentoo-dev] Documentation licenses and license_groups
Am Donnerstag 07 Januar 2010 schrieb Ulrich Mueller: So the plan is: - Add GPL-1 and LGPL-2 to @GPL-COMPATIBLE - Add a new group @FSF-APPROVED-OTHER containing the following: Arphic CCPL-Attribution-2.0 CCPL-Attribution-ShareAlike-2.0 DSL FDL-1.1 FDL-1.2 FDL-1.3 FreeArt GPL-1 GPL-2 GPL-3 OFL-1.1 OPL If there are no objections, I'll commit this in the next days. I already went ahead and committed two new sets - FREE-DOCUMENTS and MISC- FREE. The above ones could probably be all added to FREE-DOCUMENTS. -- Hanno Böck Blog: http://www.hboeck.de/ GPG: 3DBD3B20 Jabber/Mail:ha...@hboeck.de http://schokokeks.org - professional webhosting signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
[gentoo-dev] Documentation licenses and license_groups
So far, the license_groups entries only contain software licenses,
but no documentation licenses like CCPL-Attribution-ShareAlike-3.0
or FDL-1.3. This has the strange consequence that most GNU software
cannot be installed if one sets ACCEPT_LICENSE=@FSF-APPROVED
@OSI-APPROVED, because the Texinfo manuals are typically licensed
under one of the GNU FDL variants.
Shouldn't all licenses listed at http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/
(unless marked as non-free) be added to FSF-APPROVED? These would be
the following:
Free Documentation Licenses:
FDL*
OPL
Licenses for Works of Practical Use Besides Software and
Documentation:
FDL*
CCPL-Attribution-2.0 (and later versions? FSF mentions 2.0 only)
CCPL-Attribution-ShareAlike-2.0 (and later versions?)
DSL
FreeArt
Licenses for Fonts:
Arphic
OFL*
Licenses for Works of Opinion and Judgment (maybe omit this group?):
CCPL-Attribution-NoDerivs-3.0 (there's only 2.5 in ${PORTDIR}/licenses/)
(GNU Verbatim Copying License - not yet in ${PORTDIR}/licenses/)
Alternatively, a new group like FSF-APPROVED-NONSOFTWARE (I'm sure
that a better name can be found ;-) could be introduced for the above.
Ulrich
Re: [gentoo-dev] Documentation licenses and license_groups
Ulrich Mueller wrote: Shouldn't all licenses listed at http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/ (unless marked as non-free) be added to FSF-APPROVED? These would be the following: Great idea, that would remove a lot of hassle. Also, I was wondering about LGPL-2 and GPL-1, surely they're GPL-compatible? The suggested license header in /usr/portage/licenses/GPL-1 contains either version 1, or (at your option) any later version. The LGPL-2 suggests 2 or later also. It's strange that the FSF doesn't mention them. Either way, the groups should definitely be expanded.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Documentation licenses and license_groups
On Tue, 05 Jan 2010, Vincent Launchbury wrote: Also, I was wondering about LGPL-2 and GPL-1, surely they're GPL-compatible? The suggested license header in /usr/portage/licenses/GPL-1 contains either version 1, or (at your option) any later version. The LGPL-2 suggests 2 or later also. It's strange that the FSF doesn't mention them. It would be strange if the GPL-1 wasn't GPL-compatible. Either way, the groups should definitely be expanded. I just went though a recent stage3. We would need the following licenses in addition to @FSF-APPROVED and @OSI-APPROVED to cover all packages in it: BZIP2 CRACKLIB FLEX freedist LGPL-2 libgcc (add-on clause for GPL-2) libstdc++ (add-on clause for GPL-2) PAM(identical to || ( BSD GPL-2 )?) popt (identical to MIT) SMAIL tcp_wrappers_license They all look like free software licenses to me (but IANAL), with the exception of freedist which only says Freely Distributable. It is used by two packages in stage3, namely sys-apps/man-pages and sys-apps/man-pages-posix. Ulrich
