Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 04:30:21 +0300 From: Nikola =?utf-8?B?TGXEjWnEhw==?= <nikola.lecic@anthesphoria.net> To: FreeBSD Ports <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Adding licensing info to my ports: some questions Message-ID: <201201162339.q0GNdG1V064832@anthesphoria.net>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--R+My9LyyhiUvIEro
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hello,
I'm about to add licensing info to all my 25 ports. I hoped that a
chapter dedicated to licensing issues would appear in the Porters
Handbook, but since this hasn't happened so far, I decided to try
without it.
Here are my questions; sorry if some of them are already answered in
the past.
1) Will licensing section ever appear in the Porters Handbook? :-)
2) Should I mark the ports that explicitly state "X11" with "MIT"?
3) Intentionally no difference between 2- and 3-clause BSD?
4) How should I state eg. "LGPL21 or any later version" or "GPL2
only i.e. no later version"?
5) What if licensing info differs for entire source file and actually
installed files? In textproc/kmfl-sil-ezra source file, the font is
licensed OFL and the keyboard layout X11; the port installs only
keyboard layout. Should I state just "MIT" in the Makefile?
6) I need three new items added to the licenses database because they
should be considered as 'known' licenses and thus belonging to the
'Case 1' in bsd.licenses.mk. There are: Common Public License, SIL
Open Font License and Public Domain [non-license]. I'd gladly
submit a PR, but I'd appreciate if someone could check this first,
especially _LICENSE_GROUPS_* including COPYFREE status.
6a) CPL:
_LICENSE_NAME_CPL=3D Common Public License
_LICENSE_GROUPS_CPL=3D FSF
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Public_License
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#CommonPublicLicens=
e10
As for this license, the software in question (textproc/teckit)
is licensed "GLPLv2.1+ or CPLv0.5+". However, the CPL version
approved on gnu.org, used in NetBSD... is 1.0. Should we make
any difference between CPL versions because of this? Or just to
use LICENSE_TEXT?
(Btw, the Wikipedia article on CPL states that this license is
OSI-approved, but I can't find it here:
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/category.)
6b) OFL:
_LICENSE_NAME_OFL=3D SIL Open Font License
_LICENSE_GROUPS_OFL=3D FSF OSI
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIL_Open_Font_License
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#SILOFL
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/OFL-1.1
6c) PD[?]:
_LICENSE_NAME_PD=3D Public Domain
_LICENSE_GROUPS_PD=3D FSF GPL
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#PublicDomain
http://cvsweb.netbsd.org/bsdweb.cgi/pkgsrc/licenses/public-domain?=
only_with_tag=3DMAIN
Many thanks in advance,
--=20
Nikola Le=C4=8Di=C4=87 =3D =D0=9D=D0=B8=D0=BA=D0=BE=D0=BB=D0=B0 =D0=9B=D0=
=B5=D1=87=D0=B8=D1=9B
fingerprint : FEF3 66AF C90E EDC3 D878 7CDC 956D F4AB A377 1C9B
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--R+My9LyyhiUvIEro
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (FreeBSD)
iJwEAQEDAAYFAk8UzysACgkQ/MM/0rYIoZimAQQAhcQy0Ftu3sHruHxwwijnEqZV
49nPFVarxZZUbMitHrwPmr7g25QNgDVbWLkPuLVLTSdLQJr/tR9wew6fmPWXtlAg
VwPNOxTXvCMT34iSNzoZbdm0ZIV5bVGZxmSCufnQcLyB/6BmBAdMio+8ZmqTj7/a
Zetbb+za/SsFtzHPpXI=
=iRZR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--R+My9LyyhiUvIEro--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201201162339.q0GNdG1V064832>