Re: a possible enhancement to receipts

[sygne@xxxxxxxxx]

Hello,

Christophe Lincoln <pankso@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> ... because a update the tread... That sais we my add the LICENSE
> variable in the time being. That said my inspiration for receipt was
> FreeBSD port Makefile and they dont have a license variable.

I'm not sure to exactly understand what is written here.
Sorry if I make a misinterpretation.

Freebsd wants to respect all the license restrictions,
and add some variable for that in its ports:
http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/porters-handbook/book.html#PORTING-RESTRICTIONS

But unlike what bsd people think, the most important restriction that give
a free license, is not a restriction to freedom, but the necessary
condition of its perpetuation. And one of these restrictions is the
obligation to share the software in a way that explain what the final user
is free to do with it.



Here are some licenses citations:

========== GPLv2 ==========
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html

section 1:
	"keep intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the
	absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients of the Program a
	copy of this License along with the Program. "a
section 3:
	"You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under
	Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
	Sections 1 and 2 above [...] "

========== GPLv3 ==========
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0-standalone.html

section 4:
	"keep intact all notices stating that this License and any non-permissive
	terms added in accord with section 7 apply to the code; keep intact all
	notices of the absence of any warranty; and give all recipients a copy
	of this License along with the Program."
section 6:
	"You may convey a covered work in object code form under the terms of
	sections 4 and 5, provided that you also convey the machine-readable
	Corresponding Source under the terms of this License, in one of these
	ways: [...]"

========== Mozilla Public License Version 1.1 ==========
http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/MPL-1.1.html

section 3.5
	"You must also duplicate this License in any documentation for the
	Source Code where You describe recipients' rights or ownership rights
	relating to Covered Code."
section 3.6
	"You may distribute Covered Code in Executable form only if the
	requirements of Section 3.1-3.5 have been met for that Covered Code,
	and if You include a notice stating that the Source Code version of the
	Covered Code is available under the terms of this License, including a
	description of how and where You have fulfilled the obligations of
	Section 3.2. The notice must be conspicuously included in any notice in
	an Executable version, related documentation or collateral in which You
	describe recipients' rights relating to the Covered Code."

========== heirloom mailx (nail) personnal nameless license ==========
section 2.
	Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
	notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
	documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution."





I'm not using freebsd, so I don't exactly know if its ports includes the
licenses, but in my opinion, as Debian do, they must include them.
I don't think that including license or not is a choice that we have to do,
it seems to be an obligation. The distribution of the sources does not
replace the distribution of the license **with** the binaries.

What we have to research is the KISSier way to do it.
For that, we can trust in Christophe and others Slitaz developpers
experience to find another good idea that make Slitaz better than others
distributions.

Pierre-Jean -Sygne-

PS: I really like the tag idea.

---
SliTaz GNU/Linux Mailing list - http://www.slitaz.org/