Hi!
I'm the new upstream for all OSSP software (https://sr.ht/~nabijaczleweli/ossp).
As part of this, I am surveying downstream packaging
(to see if I need to thaw anything beside ossp-uuid).
The mirror URL acceptable for Mk/bsd.sites.mk is
https://lfs.nabijaczleweli.xyz/0022-OSSP.org-mirror/ftp.ossp.org/ossp-ftp/pkg/%SUBDIR%/
Of interest here are:
devel/mm https://git.sr.ht/~nabijaczleweli/ossp-mm
devel/ossp-al https://git.sr.ht/~nabijaczleweli/ossp-al
devel/ossp-cfg https://git.sr.ht/~nabijaczleweli/ossp-cfg
devel/ossp-ex https://git.sr.ht/~nabijaczleweli/ossp-ex
devel/ossp-l2 https://git.sr.ht/~nabijaczleweli/ossp-l2
devel/ossp-val https://git.sr.ht/~nabijaczleweli/ossp-val
devel/ossp-var https://git.sr.ht/~nabijaczleweli/ossp-var
devel/ossp-xds https://git.sr.ht/~nabijaczleweli/ossp-xds
devel/shtool https://git.sr.ht/~nabijaczleweli/ossp-shtool
devel/str https://git.sr.ht/~nabijaczleweli/ossp-str
lang/p5-ePerl https://git.sr.ht/~nabijaczleweli/ossp-eperl
mail/lmtp2nntp https://git.sr.ht/~nabijaczleweli/ossp-lmtp2nntp
misc/iselect https://git.sr.ht/~nabijaczleweli/ossp-iselect
misc/ossp-uuid https://git.sr.ht/~nabijaczleweli/ossp-uuid
misc/p5-OSSP-uuid https://git.sr.ht/~nabijaczleweli/ossp-uuid
net/ossp-sa https://git.sr.ht/~nabijaczleweli/ossp-sa
Which say
$ for f in $p; do git grep -i lic HEAD:$f/Makefile; done
HEAD:devel/mm/Makefile:LICENSE= BSD4CLAUSE
HEAD:devel/mm/Makefile:LICENSE_FILE= ${WRKSRC}/LICENSE
this is wrong, ossp-mm/LICENSE says:
====================================================================
Copyright (c) 1999-2007 Ralf S. Engelschall <rse@engelschall.com>
Copyright (c) 1999-2007 The OSSP Project <http://www.ossp.org/>
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
are met:
1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in
the documentation and/or other materials provided with the
distribution.
3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this
software must display the following acknowledgment:
"This product includes software developed by
Ralf S. Engelschall <rse@engelschall.com>."
4. Redistributions of any form whatsoever must retain the following
acknowledgment:
"This product includes software developed by
Ralf S. Engelschall <rse@engelschall.com>."
THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY RALF S. ENGELSCHALL ``AS IS'' AND ANY
EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE
IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL RALF S. ENGELSCHALL OR
ITS CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL,
SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT
NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES;
LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION)
HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT,
STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE)
ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED
OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
====================================================================
point 4 is different from BSD-4-Clause.
HEAD:devel/ossp-xds/Makefile:LICENSE= MIT
HEAD:devel/ossp-xds/Makefile:LICENSE_FILE= ${WRKSRC}/LICENSE
this is wrong, ossp-xds/LICENSE is rse's OSSP licence (see below).
HEAD:devel/shtool/Makefile:LICENSE= GPLv2+
HEAD:devel/shtool/Makefile:LICENSE_FILE= ${WRKSRC}/COPYING
this is correct
(notably there is an exception in the README,
but that applies to users that embed shtool only).
HEAD:lang/p5-ePerl/Makefile:LICENSE= ART10 GPLv2
HEAD:lang/p5-ePerl/Makefile:LICENSE_COMB= dual
this is correct
(and eperl embeds shtool which is GPL2+;
the exception applies so it doesn't poison eperl,
but it is nevertheless a GPL2+ file;
unclear to me how accurate you like the LICENSE stanzas to be,
but GPL2 is already mentioned, so it's fine probably).
HEAD:mail/lmtp2nntp/Makefile:LICENSE= GPLv2+
HEAD:mail/lmtp2nntp/Makefile:LICENSE_FILE= ${WRKSRC}/COPYING
this is correct.
HEAD:misc/iselect/Makefile:LICENSE= GPLv2
HEAD:misc/iselect/Makefile:LICENSE_FILE= ${WRKSRC}/COPYING
mostly correct, but iselect embeds GNU getopt and which is GPL2+
(and iselect embeds shtool, but iselect is already GPL so it's ok i think).
HEAD:misc/ossp-uuid/Makefile:LICENSE= MIT
HEAD:misc/ossp-uuid/Makefile:LICENSE_FILE= ${WRKSRC}/../README
HEAD:misc/ossp-uuid/Makefile:LICENSE_FILE= ${WRKSRC}/README
this is wrong, uuid uses rse's OSSP licence:
Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software for
any purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that
the above copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all
copies.
THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED ``AS IS'' AND ANY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED
WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED.
IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS AND COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND THEIR
CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL,
SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT
LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF
USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND
ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY,
OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT
OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF
SUCH DAMAGE.
this is not in any licence corpus I'm aware of,
but it's most similar to 0BSD (but 0BSD post-dates it by 5+ years).
Of note are the ports that don't seem to specify a licence at all, too.
It's unclear to me how to query for reverse dependencies,
but most OSSP libraries are without a maintainer in FreeBSD,
and tend to be obsolete in the modern world,
having really only archival value.
Rather than fixing the licences, it may be prudent to kill them outright.
Best,
наб
On Mon, Sep 09, 2024 at 21:05:02 +0200, наб wrote:
> Hi!> > I'm the new upstream for all OSSP software (https://sr.ht/~nabijaczleweli/ossp).
[...]
Is this acknowledged by the original author, or is it unilateral
takeover? If the later, then it is better to rename the software.
> $ for f in $p; do git grep -i lic HEAD:$f/Makefile; done
[...]
Thanks, would be nice if you submit changes at
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/enter_bug.cgi> HEAD:misc/ossp-uuid/Makefile:LICENSE= MIT> HEAD:misc/ossp-uuid/Makefile:LICENSE_FILE= ${WRKSRC}/../README> HEAD:misc/ossp-uuid/Makefile:LICENSE_FILE= ${WRKSRC}/README> this is wrong, uuid uses rse's OSSP licence:
[...]
Updated in
https://cgit.freebsd.org/ports/commit/?id=f83fcbc0e3b88be7c6b0d3d1bb5e838df746a391> It's unclear to me how to query for reverse dependencies,
[...]
You are probably looking for
pkg search -Q required-by pattern
> Rather than fixing the licences, it may be prudent to kill them outright.
Could be. Personally, I think that a software being old is not enough
justification, alone, to remove it from the ports, if it compiles and is
otherwise functional.
Thanks!
--
Vasil Dimov
gro.DSBeerF@dv
%
It is a simple task to make things complex, but a complex
task to make them simple.
On Tue, Sep 10, 2024 at 12:23:48PM +0200, Vasil Dimov wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 09, 2024 at 21:05:02 +0200, наб wrote:> > I'm the new upstream for all OSSP software (https://sr.ht/~nabijaczleweli/ossp).> [...]> Is this acknowledged by the original author, or is it unilateral> takeover? If the later, then it is better to rename the software.
Unilateral
(though I think rse's still kicking, it may be prudent to mail him;
didn't really cross my mind since I usually do this for literally dead upstreams)
with the intent to primarily archive, and maybe do one point
release to drain the patches and bugs that accumulated in the past 16 years
on the 1-3 programs that anyone still distributes.
This doesn't really warrant a re-naming, to me.
It's still ossp-uuid, a little less broken and a little less 2008
(much like you distribute anyway with a full assortment of patches).
> > $ for f in $p; do git grep -i lic HEAD:$f/Makefile; done> Thanks, would be nice if you submit changes at> https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/enter_bug.cgihttps://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=281423https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=281425https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=281426https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=281427> > HEAD:misc/ossp-uuid/Makefile:LICENSE= MIT> > HEAD:misc/ossp-uuid/Makefile:LICENSE_FILE= ${WRKSRC}/../README> > HEAD:misc/ossp-uuid/Makefile:LICENSE_FILE= ${WRKSRC}/README> > this is wrong, uuid uses rse's OSSP licence:> Updated in> https://cgit.freebsd.org/ports/commit/?id=f83fcbc0e3b88be7c6b0d3d1bb5e838df746a391
thanks
> > Rather than fixing the licences, it may be prudent to kill them outright.> Could be. Personally, I think that a software being old is not enough> justification, alone, to remove it from the ports, if it compiles and is> otherwise functional.
You know the FreeBSD policy and its users' needs best, of course;
I just noted this because ossp-sa in Debian, for example,
had an install base of 1 (old=1, so just "still installed", not actually used),
and was a continuous maintenance burden so it made more sense to delete it,
especially since the value-add is /very/ dubious in 2024.
Best,
наб
Re: FreeBSD ports call OSSP software "LICENSE= MIT" (&c.), but OSSP software isn't MIT (&c.)
Hi,
I was thinking about adding the OSSP licence into our catalog
to fix this request once fo all until I realized by reading
the ossp.org website, the the license we are talking about
is considered as a BSD licence by the creators themselves.
So basically, if we respect their will, the license is basically
a BSD license with 4 clauses : http://www.ossp.org/doc/license.html
Cheers,
-- rodrigo
On 09/09/24 21:05, наб wrote:
> Hi!>> I'm the new upstream for all OSSP software (https://sr.ht/~nabijaczleweli/ossp).> As part of this, I am surveying downstream packaging> (to see if I need to thaw anything beside ossp-uuid).>> The mirror URL acceptable for Mk/bsd.sites.mk is> https://lfs.nabijaczleweli.xyz/0022-OSSP.org-mirror/ftp.ossp.org/ossp-ftp/pkg/%SUBDIR%/>> Of interest here are:> devel/mm https://git.sr.ht/~nabijaczleweli/ossp-mm> devel/ossp-al https://git.sr.ht/~nabijaczleweli/ossp-al> devel/ossp-cfg https://git.sr.ht/~nabijaczleweli/ossp-cfg> devel/ossp-ex https://git.sr.ht/~nabijaczleweli/ossp-ex> devel/ossp-l2 https://git.sr.ht/~nabijaczleweli/ossp-l2> devel/ossp-val https://git.sr.ht/~nabijaczleweli/ossp-val> devel/ossp-var https://git.sr.ht/~nabijaczleweli/ossp-var> devel/ossp-xds https://git.sr.ht/~nabijaczleweli/ossp-xds> devel/shtool https://git.sr.ht/~nabijaczleweli/ossp-shtool> devel/str https://git.sr.ht/~nabijaczleweli/ossp-str> lang/p5-ePerl https://git.sr.ht/~nabijaczleweli/ossp-eperl> mail/lmtp2nntp https://git.sr.ht/~nabijaczleweli/ossp-lmtp2nntp> misc/iselect https://git.sr.ht/~nabijaczleweli/ossp-iselect> misc/ossp-uuid https://git.sr.ht/~nabijaczleweli/ossp-uuid> misc/p5-OSSP-uuid https://git.sr.ht/~nabijaczleweli/ossp-uuid> net/ossp-sa https://git.sr.ht/~nabijaczleweli/ossp-sa>> Which say> $ for f in $p; do git grep -i lic HEAD:$f/Makefile; done> HEAD:devel/mm/Makefile:LICENSE= BSD4CLAUSE> HEAD:devel/mm/Makefile:LICENSE_FILE= ${WRKSRC}/LICENSE> this is wrong, ossp-mm/LICENSE says:> ====================================================================> Copyright (c) 1999-2007 Ralf S. Engelschall <rse@engelschall.com>> Copyright (c) 1999-2007 The OSSP Project <http://www.ossp.org/>>> Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without> modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions> are met:>> 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright> notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.>> 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright> notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in> the documentation and/or other materials provided with the> distribution.>> 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this> software must display the following acknowledgment:> "This product includes software developed by> Ralf S. Engelschall <rse@engelschall.com>.">> 4. Redistributions of any form whatsoever must retain the following> acknowledgment:> "This product includes software developed by> Ralf S. Engelschall <rse@engelschall.com>.">> THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY RALF S. ENGELSCHALL ``AS IS'' AND ANY> EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE> IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR> PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL RALF S. ENGELSCHALL OR> ITS CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL,> SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT> NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES;> LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION)> HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT,> STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE)> ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED> OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.> ====================================================================> point 4 is different from BSD-4-Clause.>> HEAD:devel/ossp-xds/Makefile:LICENSE= MIT> HEAD:devel/ossp-xds/Makefile:LICENSE_FILE= ${WRKSRC}/LICENSE> this is wrong, ossp-xds/LICENSE is rse's OSSP licence (see below).> > HEAD:devel/shtool/Makefile:LICENSE= GPLv2+> HEAD:devel/shtool/Makefile:LICENSE_FILE= ${WRKSRC}/COPYING> this is correct> (notably there is an exception in the README,> but that applies to users that embed shtool only).>> HEAD:lang/p5-ePerl/Makefile:LICENSE= ART10 GPLv2> HEAD:lang/p5-ePerl/Makefile:LICENSE_COMB= dual> this is correct> (and eperl embeds shtool which is GPL2+;> the exception applies so it doesn't poison eperl,> but it is nevertheless a GPL2+ file;> unclear to me how accurate you like the LICENSE stanzas to be,> but GPL2 is already mentioned, so it's fine probably).>> HEAD:mail/lmtp2nntp/Makefile:LICENSE= GPLv2+> HEAD:mail/lmtp2nntp/Makefile:LICENSE_FILE= ${WRKSRC}/COPYING> this is correct.>> HEAD:misc/iselect/Makefile:LICENSE= GPLv2> HEAD:misc/iselect/Makefile:LICENSE_FILE= ${WRKSRC}/COPYING> mostly correct, but iselect embeds GNU getopt and which is GPL2+> (and iselect embeds shtool, but iselect is already GPL so it's ok i think).>> HEAD:misc/ossp-uuid/Makefile:LICENSE= MIT> HEAD:misc/ossp-uuid/Makefile:LICENSE_FILE= ${WRKSRC}/../README> HEAD:misc/ossp-uuid/Makefile:LICENSE_FILE= ${WRKSRC}/README> this is wrong, uuid uses rse's OSSP licence:> Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software for> any purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that> the above copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all> copies.> > THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED ``AS IS'' AND ANY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED> WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF> MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED.> IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS AND COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND THEIR> CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL,> SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT> LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF> USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND> ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY,> OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT> OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF> SUCH DAMAGE.> this is not in any licence corpus I'm aware of,> but it's most similar to 0BSD (but 0BSD post-dates it by 5+ years).>> Of note are the ports that don't seem to specify a licence at all, too.>> It's unclear to me how to query for reverse dependencies,> but most OSSP libraries are without a maintainer in FreeBSD,> and tend to be obsolete in the modern world,> having really only archival value.> Rather than fixing the licences, it may be prudent to kill them outright.>> Best,> наб
Re: FreeBSD ports call OSSP software "LICENSE= MIT" (&c.), but OSSP software isn't MIT (&c.)
Hi!
On Wed, Sep 11, 2024 at 12:08:32AM +0200, Rodrigo Osorio wrote:
> I was thinking about adding the OSSP licence into our catalog> to fix this request once fo all until I realized by reading> the ossp.org website, the the license we are talking about> is considered as a BSD licence by the creators themselves.
(NB: what rse thinks he used is irrelevant vs what he /actually/ used;
he thought his bespoke ISC/0BSD thing is MIT. he calls it MIT.
it's not, and the terms of /his licence/ apply, not that of MIT.).
> So basically, if we respect their will, the license is basically> a BSD license with 4 clauses : http://www.ossp.org/doc/license.html
...yes.
It is /a/ BSD licence, with 4 clauses.
But it's not /the/ BSD-4-Clause licence
(per https://docs.freebsd.org/en/books/porters-handbook/makefiles/
this is what I understand "BSD4CLAUSE" to specifically mean).
The text is the same, BUT the fourth clause of BSD-4-Clause is
4. Neither the name of the copyright holder nor the names the copyright
holder nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or
promote products derived from this software without specific prior
written permission.
(https://spdx.org/licenses/BSD-4-Clause.html)
which is a no-advertisement clause, whereas ossp-mm's fourth clause is
4. Redistributions of any form whatsoever must retain the following
acknowledgment:
"This product includes software developed by
Ralf S. Engelschall <rse@engelschall.com>."
(https://git.sr.ht/~nabijaczleweli/ossp-mm/tree/trunk/item/LICENSE)
which is a mandatory-advetisement clause,
and places very different restrictions on the user.
These licences are incompatible.
Best,
наб