>>>>> On Mon, 24 Sep 2012, Rich Freeman wrote: >> I tend to interpret it in the latter sense. To illustrate why, let's >> look at sci-visualization/gnuplot-4.6.0 as an example: >> >> LICENSE="gnuplot GPL-2 bitmap? ( free-noncomm )" >> >> The bulk of the package is free software, distributed under the >> gnuplot license or the GPL-2. However, there's an additional notice >> with a no-sale clause in a single source file (src/bitmap.c). >> If LICENSE applies to installed files, than we can disable the >> functionality via USE=-bitmap and we're done.
> I guess we can get away with redistributing the source files each > under their respective license, since there is no "derived work" at > this point. However, any binaries built from such a thing would not > be redistributable. None of those licenses are GPL-compatible. This is not a problem here. Gnuplot itself is licensed under the gnuplot license. The GPL licensed parts (e.g. Gnuplot mode for Emacs) are not linked with it but installed separately. The GPL doesn't forbid mere accumulation of things, so redistribution of the binary isn't an issue. > [...] > Not necessarily the end of the world to be honest - how many things > do we have in the tree for which upstream only has an scm and no > source tarballs, so we have to roll our own on every release anyway > due to the prohibition on live scm packages being unmasked? Too many already, so we shouldn't add more when it's not necessary. Ulrich
