rodent%NetBSD.org@localhost writes: > I'd like to 1) add this: > > http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/PDL.html > > as licenses/pdl-v1.0. It is rather similar to mpl-v1.0, but with a > documentation clause, as that is the focus of the license. It seems that it > can also be 2) default acceptable. > > Please, approve/deny #1 and #2. aspell-ms needs this. The key question is whether this license is Free (FSF) or Open Source (OSI) [1]. If it is, it can be added as you ask. If it is known to be non-free/open, it has to have a license suffix and can't go in DEFAULT_ACCEPTABLE_LICENSES. It was an intentional policy decision that pkgsrc maintainers not be arbiters of whether licenses are adequately free. It's certainly reasonable for you to add it immediately as presumed non-free (-license suffix, not in DEFAULT_ACCEPTABLE_LICENSES). A quick check did not turn up any such approvals. So I would suggest asking mozilla what's up, and if they have submitted it. Sorry to seem difficult, but non-specialists looking at new licenses and saying "it looks freeish" is tricky business, one we decided not to get into. These days anyone using a nonstandard license really has an obligation to get it approved if they want it to be treated as free. Another thing to check is if the license has been approved by the Debian Free Software Guidelines. I would not object to adding that as third authority. But DFSG is messy because it seems that a license is known to be acceptable if it is permitted to be on the server by ftpmasters, rather than having a published list (if I followed the situation correctly last I looked). If it turns out this is equivalent to MPL (in a wdiff text sense), then the packages should be pointed to that license. (There's a wrinkle that board@ has asked that Free licenses simnilar to AGPL not be in DEFAULT_ACCEPTABLE_LICENSES, but this is not apparently such a license.)
Attachment:
pgpXwTMiboIjU.pgp
Description: PGP signature