Bug 425140 – LGPL-2.1-linking-exception should be in @FREE

• Product: Gentoo Linux
• Status: RESOLVED FIXED

[Description Jacques-Pascal Deplaix 2012-07-07 08:22:25 UTC]

As far as I can understand the meaning of this license.
I think, the LGPL-2.1-linking-exception should be in the FREE licenses group.

http://caml.inria.fr/pub/old_caml_site/ocaml/LICENSE.html

Note: This license is used by many software located in dev-ml.

[Comment 1 Ulrich Müller 2012-07-08 16:06:42 UTC]

This is somewhat unsystematic, on the one hand we have several GPL-*-with-*exception* which are complete licenses by themselves.

On the other hand, there are LGPL-2.1-linking-exception and LGPL-2.1-FPC which contain only the exception clause. Do we want such partial licenses, or should we create a LGPL-2.1-with-linking-exception instead?

(Most packages in dev-ml seem to use it in that sense already, i.e. they just have LICENSE="LGPL-2.1-linking-exception" and don't add the LGPL-2.1 itself.)

[Comment 2 Jacques-Pascal Deplaix 2012-07-09 08:28:31 UTC]

I think, create a LGPL-2.1-with-linking-exception is a good idea. Because, I don't really see the purpose of a partial license.

[Comment 3 Ulrich Müller 2012-07-09 21:41:14 UTC]

Created (and added to @GPL-COMPATIBLE group):
   LGPL-2.1-with-linking-exception
   LGPL-3-with-linking-exception

Removed:
   LGPL-2.1-linking-exception
   LGPL-2.1-FPC

All affected ebuilds (in main tree) updated.

[Comment 4 Jacques-Pascal Deplaix 2012-07-11 08:44:45 UTC]

I don't know why, but I'm still have this, after sync twice:

!!! The following installed packages are masked:
- dev-ml/ocamlmod-0.0.3::gentoo (masked by: LGPL-2.1-linking-exception license(s))
A copy of the 'LGPL-2.1-linking-exception' license is located at 'None'.

- dev-ml/oasis-0.3.0::gentoo (masked by: LGPL-2.1-linking-exception license(s))
- dev-ml/ocamlify-0.0.1::gentoo (masked by: LGPL-2.1-linking-exception license(s))
For more information, see the MASKED PACKAGES section in the emerge
man page or refer to the Gentoo Handbook.

But I look into the ebuild and the license is LGPL-2.1-with-linking-exception.
So, some packages have no problems but these have one.

[Comment 5 Ulrich Müller 2012-07-11 09:09:38 UTC]

This is an artefact caused by the way Portage handles installed packages: The license of the package will be looked in the VDB (/var/db/pkg/), not in the ebuild's metadata.

As a workaround, reinstall the affected packages and you should be fine.

[Comment 6 Jacques-Pascal Deplaix 2012-07-11 11:16:40 UTC]

Thanks