Re: Why there is no OSS and non-OSS notice in pkgsrc packages?

[Cem Kayali <cemkayali%eticaret.com.tr@localhost>]

Jeremy C. Reed wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 4 Jan 2008, Cem Kayali wrote:
> 
>> " I'm sorry ", if this is not appropriate request but...
>> 
>> I do wonder why there is no variable (ie; ACCAPTABLE_SOURCE=non-OSS) or a
>> subcategory, a notice stating that a pkgrsc software is OSS (Open Source
>> Software) or non-OSS. Is this something not-compatible with NetBSD look?
>> 
>> I see similar categorization exists in some of linux distros too, ie;
>> open-suse yast and ubuntu apt-get. I do love to use NetBSD but every time
>> i
>> want to adda new software, i need to check package format and its
>> contents
>> (o am i missing something?).
> 
> 
> Please give us an example with pkgsrc?
> 
> 
> For example on one of my systems:
> 
> $ pkg_info -a -X | egrep 'PKGNAME|LICENSE=.' | grep -B1 LICENSE
> PKGNAME=pico-4.10nb1
> LICENSE=pine-license
> PKGNAME=pine-4.64nb3
> LICENSE=pine-license
> 
> And another system:
> 
> $ pkg_info -a -X | egrep 'PKGNAME|LICENSE=.' | grep -B1 LICENSE
> PKGNAME=rsaref-2.0p3
> LICENSE=no-commercial-use
> --
> PKGNAME=lame-3.96.1nb1
> LICENSE=fee-based-commercial-use
> 
> 
>   Jeremy C. Reed
> 
> 


I think i have a good example. 

/archivers/unrar:
The unRAR utility is a freeware program, distributed with source
code and developed for extracting, testing and viewing the contents
of archives created with the RAR archiver, version 1.50 and above.

PKGNAME=unrar-3.7.5
LICENSE=unrar-license


This is OSS, while it requires 'unrar-license'. 

Regards,





-----
  
  
  
----------------

Cem Kayalı

-- 
View this message in context: 
http://www.nabble.com/Why-there-is-no-OSS-and-non-OSS-notice-in-pkgsrc-packages--tp14618955p14623300.html
Sent from the pkgsrc-bugs mailing list archive at Nabble.com.