NetBSD Problem Report #46610

From www@NetBSD.org  Sun Jun 17 08:54:39 2012
Return-Path: <www@NetBSD.org>
Received: from mail.netbsd.org (mail.netbsd.org [149.20.53.66])
	by www.NetBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9792763B955
	for <gnats-bugs@gnats.NetBSD.org>; Sun, 17 Jun 2012 08:54:39 +0000 (UTC)
Message-Id: <20120617085438.BA0AC63B8CC@www.NetBSD.org>
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2012 08:54:38 +0000 (UTC)
From: reezer@reezer.org
Reply-To: reezer@reezer.org
To: gnats-bugs@NetBSD.org
Subject: vim-license, so editors/vim shouldn't carry a LICENSE variable?
X-Send-Pr-Version: www-1.0

>Number:         46610
>Category:       pkg
>Synopsis:       vim-license, so editors/vim shouldn't carry a LICENSE variable?
>Confidential:   no
>Severity:       non-critical
>Priority:       low
>Responsible:    pkg-manager
>State:          open
>Class:          change-request
>Submitter-Id:   net
>Arrival-Date:   Sun Jun 17 08:55:00 +0000 2012
>Last-Modified:  Sun Jun 17 14:25:01 +0000 2012
>Originator:     Christian Sturm
>Release:        
>Organization:
>Environment:
>Description:
From the comment in mk.conf[1]:

  Packages with licenses that qualify as  "open source"
  according to OSI or "Free" according to FSF are not
  marked with a LICENSE variable.


But from what I understand (and I hope that's correct) vim starting
with 6.1 is free software[2]. It says it isn't really copyleft, but
that isn't the requirement, right?

If I am not mistaken this means that the LICENSE variable should
therefore be removed.

[1] http://cvsweb.netbsd.org/bsdweb.cgi/pkgsrc/mk/defaults/mk.conf?rev=1.210
[2] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list#Vim
>How-To-Repeat:

>Fix:

>Audit-Trail:
From: Thomas Klausner <wiz@NetBSD.org>
To: NetBSD bugtracking <gnats-bugs@NetBSD.org>
Cc: 
Subject: Re: pkg/46610: vim-license, so editors/vim shouldn't carry a LICENSE
 variable?
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2012 16:23:49 +0200

 On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 08:55:00AM +0000, reezer@reezer.org wrote:
 > From the comment in mk.conf[1]:
 > 
 >   Packages with licenses that qualify as  "open source"
 >   according to OSI or "Free" according to FSF are not
 >   marked with a LICENSE variable.

 Oops, that was outdated, and I've just removed it.

 > But from what I understand (and I hope that's correct) vim starting
 > with 6.1 is free software[2]. It says it isn't really copyleft, but
 > that isn't the requirement, right?

 I think we've decided that OSI/FSF-Free licenses don't need the word
 "license" in the name, so I'll leave this PR open for that reason.
  Thomas

Home	PR Database Search