From owner-freebsd-ports  Wed Aug 30 03:28:29 1995
Return-Path: ports-owner
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by freefall.FreeBSD.org (8.6.11/8.6.6) id DAA24731
          for ports-outgoing; Wed, 30 Aug 1995 03:28:29 -0700
Received: from server.netcraft.co.uk (server.netcraft.co.uk [194.72.238.2])
          by freefall.FreeBSD.org (8.6.11/8.6.6) with ESMTP id DAA24724
          ; Wed, 30 Aug 1995 03:28:19 -0700
Received: (from paul@localhost) by server.netcraft.co.uk (8.6.11/8.6.9) id LAA22065; Wed, 30 Aug 1995 11:27:59 +0100
From: Paul Richards <paul@netcraft.co.uk>
Message-Id: <199508301027.LAA22065@server.netcraft.co.uk>
Subject: Re: copyright notices for ports/packages
To: asami@cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami)
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 1995 11:27:58 +0100 (BST)
Cc: paul@FreeBSD.org, jkh@time.cdrom.com, ports@FreeBSD.org
In-Reply-To: <199508300850.BAA17766@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU> from "Satoshi Asami" at Aug 30, 95 01:50:28 am
Reply-to: paul@FreeBSD.org
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Length: 1616      
Sender: ports-owner@FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

In reply to Satoshi Asami who said
> 
> But I still think Jordan's proposal can save space and achieve almost
> the same effect.  We can still require all ports to have the
> 
> COPYRIGHT= @GPL
> 
> or
> 
> COPYRIGHT= ${WRKSRC}/doc/Copyright

Yeah, that would be ok, to save space on common licenses.

> 
> lines, and I don't think that people would just look at the name of
> the file and NOT look at their contents.
> 

Problem here is that few people understand copyright issues, particularly
what we find acceptable to be in our release.

> Your other point about wanting them in our cvs tree for easy lookup, I
> think that's a valid point but the tradeoff is between that and the
> diskspace.  I'm trying very hard to keep the ports small so that we
> can say "hey, go get ports.tar.gz!  It's only 6 megs uncompressed!".
> I sometimes even bark at large patch files.

Ok, I'll compromise here. If we require a LICENSE line, Rod's point
is correct, we need to be clear what we're talking about, then at
least it forces porters to identify the license conditions and
provide the pointer to where to find them. The msql problem was
that the license was in a truly obscure place and I stumbled over
it by accident.

I'm still against installing unecessary files with the binaries for
the same reasons you use above, i.e. diskspace. If the license requires
something's installed with the binaries then do so, otherwise don't.

-- 
  Paul Richards, Bluebird Computer Systems. FreeBSD core team member. 
  Internet: paul@FreeBSD.org, http://www.freebsd.org/~paul
  Phone: 0370 462071 (Mobile), +44 1222 457651 (home)