Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 14:19:18 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 187926] New port: devel/liballium - Tor pluggable transports utility library Message-ID: <bug-187926-13-QuDaCUGqo5@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-187926-13@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-187926-13@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187926 --- Comment #16 from John Marino <marino@FreeBSD.org> --- (In reply to Adam Weinberger from comment #15) > (In reply to John Marino from comment #14) > > line 75? > > I didn't say it was great. > > It's definitely there, but it just says the variable *exists*, not what it > does. Last I remember hearing on the topic, it was decided that merely > setting LICENSE was insufficient, because if any word was changed from the > canonical license then we were violating terms by not distributing the > provided license. That came from mat@ and a lot of people pushed back on the idea that LICENCE_FILE is required unconditionally. The original thinking what that *if* the license matched word for word what ports provided, just the LICENSE= definition was enough. Of course, the license framework is a red-headed stepchild that half of us just want to go away because nobody loves it, so there's no definitive answer. > So my understanding was that, to comply with the terms of the licenses, the > license had to be distributed with the packaged binary. if LICENSE= is defined, the license is distributed with the binary. The question is where there text comes from the ports templates or from the distribution tarball (or from the ports Makefile with LICENSE_TEXT=) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-187926-13-QuDaCUGqo5>