The entry LICENSE=GPLv3 applies to large parts of the compiler but is utterly and totally incorrect as it comes to the run time provided by this port. GCC has gone to great lengths not to render software built with GCC and/or linking against its run- time libraries free software as well, among others by virtue of the run-time exceptions in the license. The current statement grossly misrepresents this and can easily to people drawing incorrect conclusions. How-To-Repeat: Cf. // Under Section 7 of GPL version 3, you are granted additional // permissions described in the GCC Runtime Library Exception, version // 3.1, as published by the Free Software Foundation. in many files under libstdc++/src for example.
Responsible Changed From-To: freebsd-ports-bugs->marino Over to maintainer (via the GNATS Auto Assign Tool)
You didn't say how you think it should be "fixed", so I interpret you think that the LICENSE should be undefined. There is obviously no single description that is completely accurate to describe gcc. The Ada runtime has yet even a different exception (unless it's been merged with GPLv3 runtime exception). In any case, I do not expect people to use the FreeBSD ports LICENSE description as their legal guidance. I can't envision somebody deciding GCC rendered their produced binary as GPLv3 based on the port metadata and completely ignore gnu.org and fsf.org over it. Likewise there are plenty of ports marked as "BSD" but the license isn't actually BSD, just something very, very similar. If "undefined" is better than than a description that is accurate for 90% of the package, then the entire LICENSE framework is useless (and that's possible.) Or alternatively, if I presented this port to 20 developers and say, "pick an entry for LICENSE from the existing definitions", would the majority pick GPLv3? If not, which would they pick? The title says it's "Grossly incorrect", I think that's a very harsh and pedantic stance. Given that the exception is part of the license (section 7), how its it not GPLv3? or incorrect at all?
I agree that that LICENSE=GPLv3 is wrong since the license is actually GPLv3+section 7 conditions. The solution here is to create treat this as a custom license and follow the documentation for that. Be sure to set LICENSE_FILE to the appropriate file. -- Eitan Adler
Gerald, You need to respond to this PR about what you think should happen otherwise I'm just going to close it. Not only do I get frequent annoying "open PR" reminders about it, it's shown (curiously) as a "critical" problem, which obviously it's not. Clearly the outcome affects lang/gccXX ports as well. If Eitan is going to come up with some defined GCC license then we need to get that done pretty quickly as well. Thanks, John
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 6:13 AM, John Marino <freebsd.contact@marino.st> wrote: > Clearly the outcome affects lang/gccXX ports as well. If Eitan is going > to come up with some defined GCC license then we need to get that done > pretty quickly as well. I don't have time to deal with the gcc licensing issue. I'd probably just drop the LICENSE= line until I have time properly deal with this again. -- Eitan Adler Source, Ports, Doc committer Bugmeister, Ports Security teams
On Tue, 21 Jan 2014, John Marino wrote: > You didn't say how you think it should be "fixed", so I interpret you > think that the LICENSE should be undefined. > > There is obviously no single description that is completely accurate > to describe gcc. The Ada runtime has yet even a different exception > (unless it's been merged with GPLv3 runtime exception). Yes, that is the challenge. I will admit that I don't have a good answer myself, or I would have implemented that in the lang/gcc4x ports or made a concrete proposal in this PR. > In any case, I do not expect people to use the FreeBSD ports LICENSE > description as their legal guidance. I can't envision somebody deciding > GCC rendered their produced binary as GPLv3 based on the port metadata > and completely ignore gnu.org and fsf.org over it. Maybe, or even likely for critical environments. However ... > Likewise there are plenty of ports marked as "BSD" but the license isn't > actually BSD, just something very, very similar. If "undefined" is > better than than a description that is accurate for 90% of the package, > then the entire LICENSE framework is useless (and that's possible.) ... here we are not looking at something very, very similar. The difference here is about software being built by this port and using its run-time libraries becoming free software by virtue of the "virality" of the GPL or being able to remain proprietary. That is a huge difference and there has been quite a bit of FUD and confusion around this in the context of FreeBSD already. (Not caused by this port or its maintainer, mind!) Gerald
On Mon, 3 Feb 2014, John Marino wrote: > You need to respond to this PR about what you think should happen > otherwise I'm just going to close it. I'm sorry, catching up from my involuntarily being (mostly) offline for weeks, per my mail to developers@ back then. > Clearly the outcome affects lang/gccXX ports as well. If Eitan is going > to come up with some defined GCC license then we need to get that done > pretty quickly as well. Yes, I'd love to have a nice solution that we could also use for the gcc4x ports. I'm not sufficiently familiar with the license framework, unfortunately, and generally cautious assessing the license of such a large body of code. Gerald
Author: marino Date: Wed Feb 12 23:39:58 2014 New Revision: 344035 URL: http://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/344035 QAT: https://qat.redports.org/buildarchive/r344035/ Log: lang/gnat-aux: Add GPLv3RLE license requirement PR: ports/185970 submitted by: gerald@ Modified: head/lang/gnat-aux/Makefile Modified: head/lang/gnat-aux/Makefile ============================================================================== --- head/lang/gnat-aux/Makefile Wed Feb 12 23:34:19 2014 (r344034) +++ head/lang/gnat-aux/Makefile Wed Feb 12 23:39:58 2014 (r344035) @@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ PORTNAME= gnat-aux PORTVERSION= ${SNAPSHOT} -PORTREVISION= 1 +PORTREVISION= 2 CATEGORIES= lang MASTER_SITES= http://downloads.dragonlace.net/src/:boot \ ${MASTER_SITE_GCC} @@ -13,7 +13,8 @@ DISTFILES= gcc-core-${GCC_VERSION}.tar.b MAINTAINER= marino@FreeBSD.org COMMENT= GNAT Ada compiler based on GCC ${GCC_BRANCH} -LICENSE= GPLv3 +LICENSE= GPLv3 GPLv3RLE +LICENSE_COMB= multi DEPRECATED= Superceded by gcc4.7-based lang/gcc-aux, use it instead EXPIRATION_DATE=2014-06-01 _______________________________________________ svn-ports-all@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-ports-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-ports-all-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
State Changed From-To: open->closed New license GPLv3RLE defined, it is new additional requirement for gcc ports (gcc-aux, gnat-aux)