There's neither a copyright notice nor a license included in the package's tarball. Also no information on HOMEPAGE.
I couldn't find it either... no idea about what to do :/
Same situation for dev-libs/djb. There's some information about redistribution terms at <http://cr.yp.to/distributors.html>. But looks like these two packages are not included.
More packages to add. The following is hopefully a complete list of the packages of D. J. Bernstein that we include (and that he hasn't placed into the public domain): app-crypt/nistp224 dev-libs/djb net-mail/checkpassword net-mail/qmailanalog net-mail/serialmail net-misc/clockspeed www-servers/publicfile
Of the packages mentioned in the previous comment, only for net-mail/qmailanalog the right to distribute is granted: "You may distribute unmodified copies of qmailanalog-0.70.tar.gz." (in README). All others only contain a copyright statement, but no license whatsoever. CCing trustees.
Great, this licensing model (or lack thereof) has made it into Wikipedia: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Licence-Free_Software> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Daniel_J._Bernstein#Licenses> See also the references therein.
I already suggested (by e-mail to licenses team) that we should add a licenses/all-rights-reserved file, along the following lines: All rights reserved. This package either has an explicit "all rights reserved" clause, or comes without any license, or only with a disclaimer. This means that you have only the rights that are granted to you by law. If you have lawfully acquired a copy of the program (e.g., by buying it or by downloading it from the author's site) then in many legislations you are allowed to compile it, run it, make a backup, and to patch it as necessary, without permission from the copyright holder. Redistribution of the program is not allowed. Disclaimer: We believe that the above applies to the United States and countries in the European Union at least. However, it is your own responsibility to obey your country's laws. It would come in handy for cases like the packages listed above. Of course, any ebuild using this would have to be mirror and bindist restricted. We would then have the following classes of licenses: * public-domain, you can do anything you want, * real licenses that grant you _more_ than your statutory rights (these subdivide into free and non-free), * all-rights-reserved, you only have the default rights granted by law, * license agreements, where the copyright holders (try to) take away some of your rights, i.e. you have _less_ than your statutory rights (this more or less coincides with the @EULA license group) But maybe this is something for the trustees to decide.
(In reply to comment #6) > I already suggested (by e-mail to licenses team) that we should add a > licenses/all-rights-reserved file, along the following lines: > ++ - I'd be interested in whether the licenses team supports this. If necessary the trustees can take this up (there is a meeting in 6 days so ideally we should try to have this ready for decision prior to this). I agree with all that you stated, save the bit about licenses that take away rights. That is debatable, but not really relevant to the matter at hand. Insofar as the proposal to add the pseudo-license with the text you supplied goes, I fully support this.
(In reply to comment #7) > (In reply to comment #6) > > I already suggested (by e-mail to licenses team) that we should add a > > licenses/all-rights-reserved file, along the following lines: > > > > ++ - I'd be interested in whether the licenses team supports this. If > necessary the trustees can take this up (there is a meeting in 6 days so > ideally we should try to have this ready for decision prior to this). As a member of the Licenses Team I support Ulm’s proposal. Such a distinction could make the legal situation of packages clearer for Gentoo developers and users. > I agree with all that you stated, save the bit about licenses that take away > rights. That is debatable, but not really relevant to the matter at hand. In law school (in Slovenia, EU) we were taught the distinction between (real) licenses and (licensing) agreements as Ulm suggests.
@trustees: Any news here?
If it does get added, this needs to be applied to games-strategy/dungeon-defenders. See bug #448416.
this is also currently blocking an ebuild of mine which installs a commercial game http://www.ftlgame.com/ games herd feels uncomfortable about adding it with empty LICENSE
(In reply to comment #6) > I already suggested (by e-mail to licenses team) that we should add a > licenses/all-rights-reserved file, along the following lines: > > All rights reserved. > > This package either has an explicit "all rights reserved" clause, or > comes without any license, or only with a disclaimer. This means that > you have only the rights that are granted to you by law. If you have > lawfully acquired a copy of the program (e.g., by buying it or by > downloading it from the author's site) then in many legislations you > are allowed to compile it, run it, make a backup, and to patch it as > necessary, without permission from the copyright holder. > > Redistribution of the program is not allowed. > > Disclaimer: We believe that the above applies to the United States > and countries in the European Union at least. However, it is your own > responsibility to obey your country's laws. Committed to CVS as licenses/all-rights-reserved, with one small change in wording: I've omitted the word "either" in the first sentence.
(In reply to comment #12) > > Committed to CVS as licenses/all-rights-reserved, with one small change in > wording: I've omitted the word "either" in the first sentence. Thanks - so far all the trustees who have commented by mail are fine with moving forward. However, several have not responded at all. In the absence of any kind of objection I think the licenses team can just run with this. After all, it really is ideal for the license team to run with the ball unless they need backup. The trustees don't need to approve every decision they make/etc. Thanks for CCing us just the same.
(In reply to comment #3) > The following is hopefully a complete list of the packages of > D. J. Bernstein that we include (and that he hasn't placed into the > public domain): All fixed, as follows: > net-mail/qmailanalog LICENSE="freedist" > app-crypt/nistp224 > net-mail/checkpassword > net-mail/serialmail > net-misc/clockspeed > www-servers/publicfile LICENSE="all-rights-reserved" RESTRICT="bindist mirror" > dev-libs/djb As above, but with an additional "public-domain", see the package's HOMEPAGE: "Actually, Bernstein explicitly declared parts of his work to be public domain, for example the tai code that is included in libdjb (albeit not documented yet)." (In reply to comment #13) > Thanks - so far all the trustees who have commented by mail are fine with > moving forward. However, several have not responded at all. > > In the absence of any kind of objection I think the licenses team can just > run with this. After all, it really is ideal for the license team to run > with the ball unless they need backup. The trustees don't need to approve > every decision they make/etc. Thanks for CCing us just the same. Thanks for the affirmative answer.
The bug has been referenced in the following commit(s): https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/commit/?id=6d4a44bd1780b59620282e2f94dd8b611802cff3 commit 6d4a44bd1780b59620282e2f94dd8b611802cff3 Author: Petr Vaněk <arkamar@gentoo.org> AuthorDate: 2025-01-16 09:20:22 +0000 Commit: Petr Vaněk <arkamar@gentoo.org> CommitDate: 2025-01-16 09:26:22 +0000 net-misc/clockspeed: drop mirror and bindist restriction The package license was changed to public-domain in commit bfd4b0319f07 ("net-misc/clockspeed: Fix license"), therefore, mirror and bindist restrictions are no longer needed. Bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/444424 Signed-off-by: Petr Vaněk <arkamar@gentoo.org> net-misc/clockspeed/clockspeed-0.62-r9.ebuild | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/commit/?id=36c14dffe1f896eede50c250974c086dfea8083f commit 36c14dffe1f896eede50c250974c086dfea8083f Author: Petr Vaněk <arkamar@gentoo.org> AuthorDate: 2025-01-16 09:01:15 +0000 Commit: Petr Vaněk <arkamar@gentoo.org> CommitDate: 2025-01-16 09:01:23 +0000 net-mail/serialmail: update LICENSE As of today, the http://cr.yp.to/distributors.html contains following notice: 2022.11.15: I hereby place the serialmail package (in particular, serialmail-0.75.tar.gz, with SHA-256 checksum 1825c911087f28692c3441d4f95747201c520a22575ab3e6132b5c14097038f3) into the public domain. The package is no longer copyrighted. Therefore, the package license is changed appropriately and mirror and bindist restrictions are dropped. Bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/444424 Signed-off-by: Petr Vaněk <arkamar@gentoo.org> net-mail/serialmail/serialmail-0.75-r5.ebuild | 6 +++--- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
