cvs commit: ports CHANGES UPDATING ports/Mk bsd.port.mk ports/accessibility/linux-atk Makefile pkg-plist ports/archivers/stuffit Makefile ports/astro/linux-setiathome Makefile

[Warner Losh]

> I assume that you are talking about this part, yes?
> 
>  >    - remove RESTRICTED from some GPL licensed ports, even when we only
>  >      distribute binaries, we get them from official linux sites, so
>  >      anyone can grab them there if he needs to
>  >
> 
> FWIW, I brought up similar concerns with Kris a few days ago, and it was
> discussed further in private with myself, him, and Warner.  I'm still
> very concerned about it and I don't think that a real resolution was
> reached.  This was something that was going to be brought up in an
> upcoming concall, but that obviously hasn't happened yet.  It's likely
> that we need a real legal opinion here, not just idle conjecture.  But
> yes, this is on the radar and I hope to have a resolution soon.

I think the conclusion was that we can redistribute the binaries,
unchanged, without the srpms because we're relying on the people we
got the rpms from to continue to distribute them.  This falls under
the clause 3c in the gpl.  However, since we've not had a written
offer, pursuant to cluase 3b, from the upstream source, I'm not sure
that we can apply 3c to our situation.  We have an implicit offer, but
not an explicit one.

The project would be in compliance if we had the SRPMs on our web/ftp
server, or if we had an explicit third party agreement.  The cdrom
makers, however, would need to either provide the SRPMs, or make an
explicit agreement with the project to use the Project's copies of the
sprms, assuming we don't make a section 3b written offer they can pass
through.  I'd say we just have a 'source only' cdrom for this, but
that's just an off the cuff idea.

This one is grey, but likely legal.  The more disturbing one is when
we have GPL'd software as binary packages.  If we don't also provide
the distfiles on our site, then we're in bigger trouble becaue that's
no logner a grey area, but a more explicit violation of the GPL.

Ideally, the ports infrastructure would grow a setting to allow for
this to be easily managed.

Warner