This software may be copied or redistributed as long as it is not sold
for profit, but it can be incorporated into any other substantive
product with or without modifications for profit or non-profit.
I'm not really sure here. Technically, @BINARY-REDIST* says this shouldn't be considered redistributed as it prohibits for-profit redistribution. However, that 'substantive product' may apply here as well.
@licenses, any idea?
The problem is that it isn't clear what "incorporated" means, and if distributing a binary package (possibly along with other binary packages on the same medium) is incorporation into a product.
IANAL, but I think that binpkgs distributed e.g. on a DVD form a collective work, which usually doesn't affect the copyright of its components. So I would err on the side of caution and add the bindist restriction.
(As a side note, could you please indicate the name of the license in your bug reports? In this case CDF vs cdf is trivial, but in other bugs it was not.)
The bug has been closed via the following commit(s):
Author: Andrew Ammerlaan <firstname.lastname@example.org>
AuthorDate: 2021-05-29 15:42:42 +0000
Commit: Andrew Ammerlaan <email@example.com>
CommitDate: 2021-05-29 15:52:02 +0000
sci-libs/cdf: add version 3.8.0
- bumped java version
- no longer installs into /usr/CDFLeapSeconds.txt
- no longer calls CC directly
- restricted bindist
Package-Manager: Portage-3.0.19, Repoman-3.0.3
Signed-off-by: Andrew Ammerlaan <firstname.lastname@example.org>
sci-libs/cdf/Manifest | 9 ++
sci-libs/cdf/cdf-18.104.22.168.ebuild | 1 +
sci-libs/cdf/cdf-3.8.0.ebuild | 133 +++++++++++++++++++++++
sci-libs/cdf/files/cdf-3.8.0-respect-flags.patch | 96 ++++++++++++++++
4 files changed, 239 insertions(+)