Gentoo Websites Logo
Go to: Gentoo Home Documentation Forums Lists Bugs Planet Store Wiki Get Gentoo!
Bug 449948 - sys-libs/glibc - inner-net license is of a boolean non-free nature
Summary: sys-libs/glibc - inner-net license is of a boolean non-free nature
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: Gentoo Linux
Classification: Unclassified
Component: [OLD] Core system (show other bugs)
Hardware: All Linux
: Normal enhancement (vote)
Assignee: Licenses team
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2013-01-03 08:28 UTC by Luke-Jr
Modified: 2013-02-24 14:10 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:
Package list:
Runtime testing required: ---


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Luke-Jr 2013-01-03 08:28:53 UTC
I would like to accept the inner-net license in cases only where clause 0 is not exercised ("0. If you receive a version of the software that is specifically labelled as not being for redistribution (check the version message and/or README), you are not permitted to redistribute that version of the software in any
way or form."). Is it possible to split this license into two entries, one where clause 0 is inactive, and one where it is?
Comment 1 Jeroen Roovers gentoo-dev 2013-01-03 09:03:32 UTC
Em, USE=bindist might help?
Comment 2 Luke-Jr 2013-01-03 09:14:27 UTC
To clarify, I want to build non-redistributable (due to patents or whatever) binaries, but only with code that I can redistribute freely.
Comment 3 Hanno Böck gentoo-dev 2013-01-03 09:16:55 UTC
@luke:
that makes sense. However, we should check if there are any packages that have clause 0 exercised and use that license. So we may not need the non-free variant of it at all. Can you do that?

@jer: BINDIST doesn't help here. We have license groups for "free" (as in freedom) licenses and we can't conditionally add a license to a license group.
Comment 4 Luke-Jr 2013-01-03 09:23:42 UTC
`eix -L inner-net --only-names` says only sys-libs/glibc is using this license, and I would expect the LGPL-2.1+ to prohibit exercise of clause 0.
Comment 5 Hanno Böck gentoo-dev 2013-01-03 09:34:22 UTC
So we're probably fine if we just add a note to the inner-net license file that this should only be used for apps that don't pull clause 0 and we're fine, right? I'll check this with ulm (who's currently the most active person in the license team) and commit if he agrees.
Comment 6 Luke-Jr 2013-01-03 09:46:36 UTC
Sounds good to me.
Comment 7 Ulrich Müller gentoo-dev 2013-01-03 12:47:26 UTC
(In reply to comment #4)
> `eix -L inner-net --only-names` says only sys-libs/glibc is using this
> license, and I would expect the LGPL-2.1+ to prohibit exercise of clause 0.

sys-libs/uclibc is using it too, for libc/inet/getaddrinfo.c.


(In reply to comment #5)
> So we're probably fine if we just add a note to the inner-net license file
> that this should only be used for apps that don't pull clause 0 and we're
> fine, right? I'll check this with ulm (who's currently the most active
> person in the license team) and commit if he agrees.

Please go ahead.

(Seems that we don't have a standard for adding such notes yet. Could "BSD-with-attribution" used as an example, or should we be more explicit and introduce it with "Gentoo license note" instead of "Note"?)
Comment 8 Mark Loeser (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2013-02-22 22:21:39 UTC
Doesn't look like toolchain is needed here.
Comment 9 Ulrich Müller gentoo-dev 2013-02-24 14:10:32 UTC
--- inner-net   22 Dec 2012 09:13:46 -0000      1.1
+++ inner-net   24 Feb 2013 14:09:38 -0000      1.2
@@ -32,3 +32,9 @@
 SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
 
   If these license terms cause you a real problem, contact the author.
+
+---
+
+Gentoo license note: In order to qualify as a free software license,
+the "inner-net" license label must only be used for packages where
+clause 0 is not exercised.