Now we finally have the accept license feature in portage, though it'll take us some cleanup till we can use it. In license_groups, we have just one line which says: GPL-COMPATIBLE Apache-2.0 Artistic Artistic-2 BSD BSD-2 Boost-1.0 GPL-2 GPL-3 Intel LGPL-2.1 LGPL-3 PYTHON Ruby W3C W3C-document X11 ZLIB public-domain ZPL Now first, this is plain wrong. BSD original is not gpl-compatible, I think original artistic also, the others would need verification. Beside, nowadays it's questionable what GPL-COMPATIBLE means, as we have at least two widely used incompatible GPLs (2 and 3). We'd better replace this with a FSF_APPROVED line, which contains everything that could be considered free under the four freedoms defined by the fsf (use, share, modify, share modifications iirc).
Please assign this bug yourself, Hanno.
solar, you're listed as the last one touching license_groups
Hanno, Feel free to clean them to how you please. What I put in the tree was more or less a placeholder based on the info from http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html
There is an extensive list (with classification) of licences at <http://www.ifross.de/ifross_html/lizenzcenter-en.html>. It seems it is more complete than the well-known list from the FSF.
I would love to see a few more license groups added. I see no problem with leaving the GPL-COMPATIBLE group, so long as it is cleaned up, and possible change it to GPL2-COMPATIBLE with a GPL3-COMPATIBLE group. This would allow people to -@GPL3-COMPATIBLE @GPL2-COMPATIBLE if they don't agree with the provisions in the GPLv3. I would definitely like to see a new FSF-APPROVED and OSI-APPROVED groups, too. They're quite similar, but there's nothing stopping a license from being added to more than one group. Some other good groups would be: BSD PUBLIC (this should contain things like freedist and as-is) X11 (all the X11 licenses) At least those groups should cover most of the things people would expect to work out of the box. I'm sure there are literally tons more, but I think that's a good start. I hope that somebody with tree access can get to this some time soon. If not, I'll end up writing a patch, I guess. I'd just need someone to commit it for me.
I'd certainly commit contributed license group definitions, I just won't spend time collecting or verifying them.
Well, I am likely to be using this functionality before too much longer in my own projects, so, unless someone else provides something for this, I guess I will submit a patch. Anybody interested in pushing the commit to the tree for me?
wolf31o2, depends on the patch. Mind attaching it here for ref?
I went through the list of what we have as "GPL-COMPATIBLE", and all of the following seem to be o.k.: Apache-2.0 = "Apache License, Version 2.0" Artistic-2 = "Artistic License 2.0" as-is = "GNU All-Permissive License" Boost-1.0 = "Boost Software License" BSD = "Modified BSD license" BSD-2 = "FreeBSD license" CeCILL-2 = "CeCILL version 2" DB OracleDB = "Berkeley Database License (aka the Sleepycat Software Product License)" FTL = "Freetype Project License" GPL-1 GPL-2 GPL-3 = "GNU General Public License (GPL)" Intel (redundant with BSD, to be removed, bug 301123) ISC = "ISC License" LGPL-2 LGPL-2.1 LGPL-3 = "GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL)" MIT = "Expat License" OPENLDAP = "OpenLDAP License, Version 2.7" PSF-2.2 PSF-2.3 PSF-2.4 = "License of Python 2.0.1, 2.1.1, and newer versions" public-domain = "Public Domain" PYTHON = "License of Python 1.6a2 and earlier versions" Ruby = "License of Ruby" SGI-B-2.0 = "SGI Free Software License B, version 2.0" unicode = "Unicode, Inc. License Agreement for Data Files and Software" vim = "License of Vim, Version 6.1 or later" W3C = "W3C Software Notice and License" WTFPL-2 = "WTFPL, Version 2" X11 = "X11 License" (redundant with MIT, according to X11 team) ZLIB = "License of ZLib" ZPL = "Zope Public License, versions 2.0 and 2.1" This one is missing from our list: UoI-NCSA = "NCSA/University of Illinois Open Source License" These are listed on the FSF page, but AFAICS we don't have them: "GNU Affero General Public License (AGPL) version 3" "The Clear BSD License" "Cryptix General License" "Educational Community License 2.0" "Eiffel Forum License, version 2" "EU DataGrid Software License" "License of the iMatix Standard Function Library" "Independent JPEG Group License" "License of imlib2" "Intel Open Source License" (this is _not_ what we have listed as "Intel") "License of Netscape Javascript" "License of Perl 5 and below" (redundant with "|| ( Artistic GPL-2 )")" "Standard ML of New Jersey Copyright License" "XFree86 1.1 License" Seems that these aren't listed as "GPL compatible" on the FSF page: Artistic lsof "Artistic" is approved by the OSI, so we can safely (i.e. without affecting the @FREE-SOFTWARE group) remove it from GPL-COMPATIBLE. "lsof" was added by this commit: <http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo-x86/profiles/license_groups?r1=1.9&r2=1.10> @loki_val: No doubt this is a free software license, but which one listed on the FSF page does it correspond to? Anything that I've missed in the above?
(In reply to comment #9) > This one is missing from our list: > UoI-NCSA = "NCSA/University of Illinois Open Source License" Added. > These are listed on the FSF page, but AFAICS we don't have them: > "GNU Affero General Public License (AGPL) version 3" Actually, we have AGPL-3. Added. > Seems that these aren't listed as "GPL compatible" on the FSF page: > Artistic Removed (it's still in OSI-APPROVED). > lsof Moved to MISC-FREE.
(In reply to comment #10) > (In reply to comment #9) > > Artistic > > Removed (it's still in OSI-APPROVED). No it isn't, but it should be.
(In reply to comment #11) > No it isn't > Because of Bug 301969 comment #11
(In reply to comment #12) > (In reply to comment #11) > > No it isn't > > > > Because of Bug 301969 comment #11 I've re-added it: <http://www.opensource.org/licenses/artistic-license-1.0.php> Closing this bug, since all entries in GPL-COMPATIBLE have been verified.
