#31382 closed enhancement (fixed)
hdf5-18: Add license info; move szip into variant
| Reported by: | eborisch (Eric A. Borisch) | Owned by: | mamoll (Mark Moll) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Priority: | Normal | Milestone: | |
| Component: | ports | Version: | |
| Keywords: | haspatch | Cc: | |
| Port: | hdf5-18 |
Description
Add license info to hdf5-18... Dependency szip can have a non-commercial license; move it into a variant and update the license information when selected.
Suggested Portfile patch attached.
Attachments (1)
Change History (10)
Changed 13 years ago by eborisch (Eric A. Borisch)
| Attachment: | Portfile.patch added |
|---|
comment:1 follow-up: 7 Changed 13 years ago by mf2k (Frank Schima)
| Keywords: | haspatch added |
|---|
comment:2 Changed 13 years ago by mf2k (Frank Schima)
| Type: | defect → enhancement |
|---|---|
| Version: | 2.0.3 |
comment:3 Changed 13 years ago by mamoll (Mark Moll)
I am confused. Eborisch, are you saying that linking against a noncommercial library is not allowed under the NCSA license? Or that the license of HDF5 changes if linked against szip? I don't understand how that follows from the URL included in your patch.
comment:4 Changed 13 years ago by eborisch (Eric A. Borisch)
My main goal was to get hdf5-18 to build & distribute through the buildbot, which necessitates a compatible (redistributeable, NCSA qualifies) license for the package (in its default variant mode) and for all (recursive) deps of the default variant. (Someone please correct me if I'm wrong here!!!)
Szip has its own special license: http://www.hdfgroup.org/doc_resource/SZIP/Commercial_szip.html where the terms vary based on if it is being used through HDF or not, if encoding is enabled or not, and if the user is commercial or not... But that, as they say, is another story.
It's not clear how to confine szip to only be usable within hdf5-18 (so long as szip is its own package) which, by my reading, would be required to have a 'distributable for non-commercial' hdf5-18 & szip package, so I wanted to split of szip from the default variant. Updating the license of hdf5-18 when +szip is selected is probably unnecessary, but I just trying to make it explicit why szip was in a variant for future Portfile updates. The +encoder variant on szip also changes its license terms, but that's another issue.
comment:5 Changed 13 years ago by eborisch (Eric A. Borisch)
That should have said "[...] I wanted to split off szip from the default variant."
comment:6 Changed 13 years ago by mamoll (Mark Moll)
| Resolution: | → fixed |
|---|---|
| Status: | new → closed |
I am not a lawyer, but your interpretation is probably correct. Patch applied in r84384.
comment:7 Changed 13 years ago by ryandesign (Ryan Carsten Schmidt)
comment:8 Changed 13 years ago by jmroot (Joshua Root)
Note that the braces around the license names here are unnecessary. They create a sublist, which indicates that any one of the licenses inside may be chosen. This is of course pointless when there is only one license.
I think a revision increase is in order here.