Summary: | app-text/noweb license | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Gentoo Linux | Reporter: | Ben Sagal <bensagal> |
Component: | Current packages | Assignee: | TeX project <tex> |
Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | ||
Severity: | normal | CC: | andrius, licenses |
Priority: | Normal | ||
Version: | unspecified | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- | |
Attachments: | COPYRIGHT file from noweb-2.11b.tgz |
Description
Ben Sagal
2012-01-03 10:33:44 UTC
(In reply to comment #0) > the app-text/noweb states the license is freedist, which implies there it is > free to distribute but not to change No, "freedist" implies that it's freely distributable, as $PORTDIR/licenses/freedist tells us. Nowhere does that license say anything about making changes. from $PORTDIR/profiles/license_groups
># The following are NOT valid in @MISC-FREE:
>..
># freedist - Doesn't grant the right to do modifications.
however the above license is free
Created attachment 297777 [details]
COPYRIGHT file from noweb-2.11b.tgz
Attached is the COPYRIGHT file from the tarball. Is this a free software license? It looks mostly o.k., but I'm a bit worried about the last sentence:
"You must also request that bug reports on your work be reported to you."
Does this pass the "Desert Island" test? (The recipient of such a derived work may be unable to send bug reports at all.)
Debian has approved it as free (and maybe we shouldn't be more picky than they are). Their discussion is here: <http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/1998/03/msg00175.html> So the plan would be: - Commit the text from attachment 297777 [details] as licenses/noweb and update the app-text/noweb ebuilds. - Add noweb to the @MISC-FREE license group. Any objections? *** Bug 398143 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** |