LPPL10 license consequences intended? (arabic/arabtex)

[John Marino]

On 3/23/2014 00:05, Kevin Oberman wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 2:16 PM, CyberLeo Kitsana <cyberleo at cyberleo.net>wrote:
> 
>> On 03/22/2014 02:27 PM, Kevin Oberman wrote:
>>> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 10:29 AM, John Marino <freebsd.contact at marino.st
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In December, Nicola set the license for Arabtex to LPPL10.
>>>> The result is that the port is no longer packagable:
>>>>
>>>>> ====>> Ignoring arabic/arabtex: License LPPL10 needs confirmation, but
>>>> BATCH is defined
>>>>> build of /usr/ports/arabic/arabtex ended at Mon Mar 17 16:12:44 PDT
>> 2014
>>>>
>>>> From a quick conversation on IRC, I got the idea that the license was
>>>> correct and many more Tex packages should also have this license.
>>>> If/when that happens, does that mean Tex packages are only to be built
>>>> from source?
>>>>
>>>> Is it correct that LPPL10 can't be built in a batch?
>>
>> No. You must accept the license before you can build the port, and you
>> cannot interactively accept a license in non-interactive batch mode.
>>
>> See the commments in /usr/ports/Mk/bsd.licenses.mk for what to set in
>> make.conf to automatically accept certain licenses.
>>
> 
> I have again looked over the LPPL and there is no language requiring
> explicit acceptance of the license that I can find. I see nothing about
> this more restrictive than LGPL or other standard licenses.
> 
> Am I missing it?


According to SVN, tabthorpe@ added these licenses as a result of PR
ports/151300 a couple of years ago.  Maybe he should weigh in and tell
us if making it more restrictive than the GPL was a mistake in the
original PR that just carried over?

If the latex licenses are indeed not defined correctly, they need to be
fixed.  I'd think tabthorpe@ would take the first crack at since he
added them, but if he doesn't want to, then who should evaluate and
potentially fix this?

John