Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 15:17:14 +0000 From: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org> To: Mathieu Arnold <mat@FreeBSD.org> Cc: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, Emanuel Haupt <ehaupt@FreeBSD.org>, ports-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r345472 - in head/mail: mmr smtpfeed Message-ID: <20140310151714.GD92282@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <724E420543C93474E8AD21FA@ogg.in.absolight.net> References: <201402211451.s1LEpO30005480@svn.freebsd.org> <20140310141642.GA92282@FreeBSD.org> <724E420543C93474E8AD21FA@ogg.in.absolight.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 03:33:40PM +0100, Mathieu Arnold wrote:
> +--On 10 mars 2014 14:16:42 +0000 Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org>
> wrote:
> |> LICENSE= GPLv2
> |> +LICENSE_FILE= ${WRKSRC}/COPYING
> |
> | But this on is GPLv2, no?
>
> Yes, and ? I pointed that out for the BSD licenses, but it's true for most
> of them.
> The only reason for not having a LICENSE_FILE, would be the port only
> saying it's GPLv2 without shipping with the file.
Yes, this is a problem. Essentially, license and copyright are not the
same thing: after all, GPL text tells users what they can do with a piece
of software, and in that sense, "GPLv2" alone is enough. Having a bunch
of idential GPL boilerplates installed in the system is little different
from having a bunch of COPYING files installed that differ by only these
two lines.
I would by far prefer to leave LICENSE_FILE to non-standard *licenses*,
and augment our standard legal disclaimer for Ports Tree to say e.g. that
all 3rd-party (ported) software is copyrighted by their respective owners,
or something legally clean along these lines, to make GPLv2 alone legally
sufficient (IANAL, of course).
./danfe
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20140310151714.GD92282>