From owner-freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Aug 25 17:48:43 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EC62078C for ; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 17:48:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org (kenobi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::16:76]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B96043717 for ; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 17:48:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bugs.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.118]) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id s7PHmhD9031999 for ; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 17:48:43 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 187926] New port: devel/liballium - Tor pluggable transports utility library Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 17:48:44 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: AssignedTo X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: Ports Tree X-Bugzilla-Component: Individual Port(s) X-Bugzilla-Version: Latest X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: Affects Only Me X-Bugzilla-Who: marino@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Status: Approval Needed X-Bugzilla-Priority: Normal X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bugzilla-URL: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports-bugs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: Ports bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 17:48:44 -0000 https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187926 --- Comment #25 from John Marino --- (In reply to Adam Weinberger from comment #24) > The whole of bsd.licenses.mk is wrapped in .if defined(LICENSE). Using > LICENSE_FILE with an unknown license also requires breaking down the license > into LICENSE_PERMS. Submitter is correct that it isn't as easy as just > defining LICENSE_FILE and being done with it. If you use a value of LICENSE that is recognized, the permissions are defined. If you use a value of LICENSE that is not recognized, you *must* define the permissions (and LICENCE_TEXT or LICENSE_FILE). If you don't want to define permissions then my recommendation is omit the license completely (as you know). That said, there are only 5 permissions, it's not that big a deal. Any normal license is going to permit all 5 things. > There is no officially sanctioned location for licenses. Thousands of other > ports install their license file into DOCSDIR, and this port does the same. It's only a matter of time before they are forcibly moved to LICENCES when somebody finally starts caring about the LICENSE framework. It's just shoving work on somebody down the road. > Fabian, if you believe that the COPYING file should go back into > ${PREFIX}/share/licenses where you originally had it, I am fine with moving > it there instead. Past that, I agree with you that LICENSE* is ambiguous. > > I'll leave the decision up to you, I am happy to move the file to > share/licenses or leave it as-is and close this PR. I'm less ambivalent. I don't really see the download to using LICENSE_FILE. If it's a matter of principle then just skip the whole thing. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.