Bug 195776
| Summary: | graphics/simage: License/patent clarification needed | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Ports & Packages | Reporter: | Shane <FreeBSD> | ||||||
| Component: | Individual Port(s) | Assignee: | Bartek Rutkowski <robak> | ||||||
| Status: | Closed FIXED | ||||||||
| Severity: | Affects Only Me | CC: | robak | ||||||
| Priority: | --- | Keywords: | patch-ready | ||||||
| Version: | Latest | ||||||||
| Hardware: | Any | ||||||||
| OS: | Any | ||||||||
| Attachments: |
|
||||||||
|
Description
Shane
2014-12-07 12:25:16 UTC
Maintainers CC'd Hello; I am not a lawyer and I don't maintain simage so I am not sure why my address was included to this problem report. A quick look at the Internet would show that apparently there may be an issue though: https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/07/msg01537.html Like Pedro said, there's no maintainer for this port, so just provide a patch for a reasonable license update and it will probably go through. Created attachment 152221 [details]
graphics/simage license update
This patch updates graphics/simage to fill-in license details.
Part of the source is covered by the mpeg2enc license which states - "Commercial implementations of MPEG-1 and MPEG-2 video, including shareware, are subject to royalty fees to patent holders." I believe the no-dist-sell,no-pkg-sell permissions are relevant to that.
The rest of the code is under an MIT license.
Thanks, I'll promote this as it is, but I'm wondering if it's better to install a copy of the license from files directory rather than pointing to a URL. I'll let the next committer ponder that. The licensing for this has been clarified after the last release was tagged so the file isn't included in the used tarball, hence the url. If there is a way to get a single file from bitbucket then it could be added as an extra distfile. as I said, you can put the license in the files directory and set LICENSE_FILE to point to it there. To be clear, I'm talking about "graphics/simage/files". The distfile and bitbucket doesn't matter. Created attachment 152651 [details]
graphics/simage license update
Now that I'm awake, here's an update.
do you really want to call the license "unknown"? I would suggest something like "mpeg-simage". It's actually listed as "unknown" in the license directory if you do this and I think we can be more descriptive. actually, the hyphen is probably illegal since the name needs to be part of a variable. just calling it "simage" is probably good enough (that's unique, right?) I named it mpeg2enc as it is the mpeg2enc code included that is in question and it matches the license file they include in the simage project. It would appear that mpegla is the company name behind the license so mpegla may be the more correct naming for it. If you refer to the unknown in the LICENCE variable, that is the only option for a name not pre-defined in the license structure. Then you use LICENSE_NAME to actually name it. LICENSE= MIT unknown LICENSE_COMB= dual LICENSE_NAME_unknown= mpeg2enc okay, fair enough. A commit references this bug: Author: robak Date: Fri Feb 27 14:33:40 UTC 2015 New revision: 380089 URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/380089 Log: graphics/simage: add LICENSE PR: 195776 Submitted by: Shane Ambler <FreeBSD@ShaneWare.Biz> Changes: head/graphics/simage/Makefile head/graphics/simage/files/LICENSE.mpeg2enc Committed, thanks for your work! |
