From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Wed May 26 18:51:09 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 888481065670 for ; Wed, 26 May 2010 18:51:09 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from alepulver@FreeBSD.org) Received: from relay02.pair.com (relay02.pair.com [209.68.5.16]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3ACDF8FC18 for ; Wed, 26 May 2010 18:51:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 76747 invoked by uid 0); 26 May 2010 18:51:06 -0000 Received: from 190.229.165.237 (HELO ?10.0.0.3?) (190.229.165.237) by relay02.pair.com with SMTP; 26 May 2010 18:51:06 -0000 X-pair-Authenticated: 190.229.165.237 Message-ID: <4BFD6D95.7020609@FreeBSD.org> Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 15:51:01 -0300 From: Alejandro Pulver User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.1.10) Gecko/20100512 Thunderbird/3.0.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Garrett Cooper References: <201005250025.o4P0P2Fj033764@repoman.freebsd.org> <20100525093915.03cfacfa@it.buh.tecnik93.com> <4BFC863E.7000001@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <4BFC863E.7000001@FreeBSD.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: cvs-ports@freebsd.org, Ion-Mihai Tetcu , cvs-all@freebsd.org, ports-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/Mk bsd.licenses.db.mk bsd.licenses.mk bsd.port.mk X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: **OBSOLETE** CVS commit messages for the entire tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 18:51:09 -0000 On 5/25/2010 11:23 PM, Alejandro Pulver wrote: > On 5/25/2010 4:06 AM, Garrett Cooper wrote: > >> Thanks as well Alejandro for the hard work. >> >> Just out of curiosity, was any exploration done with existing work in >> the NetBSD side as far as existing licenses or naming schemes are >> concerned? I ask because if it seems logical, I would go with some of >> the names that they've established, because they're down to a fairly >> good level of granularity (even between the different BSDL versions). >> > > No, but it's a good idea. I'll check it out before importing licenses. > One of the main differences between their version and ours is that they separate licensing information from redistribution restrictions. According to: http://www.netbsd.org/docs/pkgsrc/fixes.html#handling-licenses The port developer should set both LICENSE (only one) and restrictions (NO_{BIN,SRC}_ON_{FTP,CDROM}) independently. But our version was intended to replace RESTRICTED, NO_CDROM, NO_PACKAGE (which is ambiguous as sometimes it's not used for redistribution restrictions) and ports/LEGAL (may be automatically generated if desired, after ports are converted). We also gain a little more flexibility (the four possible combinations). If desired, restriction names could be matched to their implementation (pkg -> bin, dist -> src, etc). Currently pkgsrc has 152 license files in /usr/ports/licenses. I think it should be OK to start from there (for the ones needed). I guess in practice most ports would use LICENSE=something and don't bother with other variables, but for restricted ports or complicated cases they may prove useful (specially with FOSSology, after the next version is released). Regards, Ale