[101731] trunk/dports/devel/gettext/Portfile

[Ryan Schmidt]

On Jan 18, 2013, at 22:12, Joshua Root wrote:

> On 2013-1-19 13:58 , Ryan Schmidt wrote:
> 
>> The file README in the libunistring distribution contains the following statement:
>> 
>>> Copyright
>>> ---------
>>> 
>>> The libunistring library and its header files are under the GNU LGPL, see
>>> file COPYING.LIB.  This license is based on the GNU GPL, see file COPYING.
>>> 
>>> The documentation is under another license; see in the documentation.
>> 
>> Based on this I would say that "license GPL-3" in the libunistring portfile is wrong and should be changed to LGPL-3 or possibly LGPL-3+, I'm not sure. (The comments in the source files say GPL 3 or later.)
> 
> If the comments in the source files say GPL-3+, that's what those files
> are under, unless the copyright holder has elsewhere given permission to
> distribute under another license. If the sole copyright holder also
> wrote the README, I guess that might count, but in any case it's pretty
> unclear. We really can't just assume we know what they meant.

I didn't look at the source closely enough. Most of them say LGPL-3+ after all. I asked the developer, who confirms the library is LGPL-3, and he has corrected the header in the few files that said GPL.

http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-libunistring/2013-01/msg00001.html

So I want to change the license of the port to LGPL-3.

But the port automatically installs its documentation, which is dual licensed under GPL or FDL. So to properly indicate this, I propose to move the documentation to a libunistring-docs subport. I think moving documentation to a subport is a good idea generally. How do you feel about this?


>> Would that resolve the situation to your satisfaction, or is your objection about (L)GPL 3 vs 2.1? If the latter, I can certainly revert the inclusion of libunistring and instead go the other way and ensure it is not used.
> 
> LGPL-3(+) isn't as bad, though it still conflicts with GPL-2.

That's true. And GPL-2 is very popular. I think I'll revert the gettext change after all.