Re: pkgsrc/licenses

[Ryo ONODERA <ryo_on%yk.rim.or.jp@localhost>]

Hi,

From: Greg Troxel <gdt%ir.bbn.com@localhost>, Date: Thu, 05 May 2011 09:58:33 
-0400

> 
> Thomas Klausner <wiz%NetBSD.org@localhost> writes:
> 
>> On Thu, May 05, 2011 at 05:45:16AM +0900, Ryo ONODERA wrote:
>>> I want to import font packages to pkgsrc.
>>> See wip/konatu-ttf and wip/ricty-ttf.
>>> 
>>> These fonts are released under licenses that is not registered
>>> in pkgsrc/licenses directory.
>>> 
>>> konatu-ttf is released under Creative Commons
>>> Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported
>>> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ .
>>> Can I add this CC BY-SA 3.0 unported license to pkgsrc/licenses?
>>> CC has many variation, CC {BY|BY-ND|BY-SA|BY-NC|BY-NC-ND|BY-NA-SA}
>>> {1.0|2.0|2.5|3.0} {Unported|Generic|English|Japanese|...} and so on.
>>
>> I don't see a better way than adding them (when we need them).
>>
>> For this one, it doesn't seem worse than GPL, so we can probably add
>> it to the default allowed licenses. Greg?
> 
> It's certainly fine to add CC licenses as needed.
> 
> We have been careful not to get into the business of deciding if
> licenses are free enough, and have a "can be in default if approved by
> OSI or FSF".
> 
> I would be ok with adding some CC licenses to the default acceptable
> list.
> 
> BY and SA seem obviously ok.
> NC is fairly obviously not ok
> ND is not obvious; it seems not ok.

According to The Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG) explanation page
http://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses , some version of CC license is
incompatible with DFSG.
But CC-BY-SA v3.0 is compatible with DFSG.
# Sadly I cannot completely understand the problem yet.

I think that DFSG has more strict policy than OSI, and CC-BY-SA v3.0 is
compatible with GNU FDL v1.3.
I think that CC-BY-SA v3.0 is acceptable for pkgsrc's developers and users.

I will add CC-BY-SA v3.0 as pkgsrc/licenses/cc-by-sa-v3.0.
And I believe that CC-BY-SA v3.0 can be added the default acceptable list.
If there will be no objection, I want to add it to the default list.


> Has any free software umbrella organization issued opinions on whether
> the various cc licenses are Free or Open Source?
> 
>>> eicty-ttf is released under licenses that are already registered in
>>> pkgsrc/licenses (ipafont and open-font-license), and M+ font license.
>>> You can read M+ font license in
>>> http://mplus-fonts.sourceforge.jp/mplus-outline-fonts/index-en.html#license 
>>> .
>>> Can I identify this license as other license that is already registered
>>> in pkgsrc/licenses? Or can I add this to pkgsrc/licenses?
>>
>> It's very minimal. I like it ;)
>> I don't think it exists already, add it, and also to the default
>> allowed (in mk/ and pkgtools/pkg_install).
> 
> If the license differs in name of copyright holder and
> whitespace/etc. only, it's the same license.

Thank you.
I will add M+ font license as pkgsrc/licenses/mplusfont and
to the default accept list.

> I think we need to have some guidelines before adding licenses not
> recognized as free/open to the default list.

I think so.


Thank you very much.

--
Ryo ONODERA // ryo_on%yk.rim.or.jp@localhost
PGP fingerprint = 82A2 DC91 76E0 A10A 8ABB  FD1B F404 27FA C7D1 15F3