Date: Thu, 31 Aug 1995 01:52:24 -0700 From: asami@cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami) To: paul@FreeBSD.org Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: copyright notices for ports/packages Message-ID: <199508310852.BAA10861@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU> In-Reply-To: <199508301027.LAA22065@server.netcraft.co.uk> (message from Paul Richards on Wed, 30 Aug 1995 11:27:58 %2B0100 (BST))
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Ok, I'll compromise here. If we require a LICENSE line, Rod's point * is correct, we need to be clear what we're talking about, then at * least it forces porters to identify the license conditions and * provide the pointer to where to find them. The msql problem was * that the license was in a truly obscure place and I stumbled over * it by accident. Ok. Actually, I think we need two variables, COPYRIGHT and LICENSE. (If they are both in a single file, let's say only the former is necessary.) Does that make sense? This is because some ports have a README that says "This port is done by Dr. Foobar DeBaz. For licensing terms, see LICENSE." One file won't be enough for those cases. * I'm still against installing unecessary files with the binaries for * the same reasons you use above, i.e. diskspace. If the license requires * something's installed with the binaries then do so, otherwise don't. They are not the same. I'm talking about the main ports tree, you are talking about the installed local tree. I am concerned as much as a hamster (with a carrot about to fall through from her paws) about the size of our ports (and src) tree, but a couple of megabytes total (and that's if you install every single freakin' port) is not THAT significant. ;) * Ok, simple solution. Make this a make switch. People who don't want * these files cluttering up their tree can set a switch in /etc/make.conf * to off and then they don't get installed. * * For legal reasons, there'll need to be a way to override this switch so * that binaries that require that a license get installed always has it * installed even with this switch set. Ok, adding a make switch is fine, but I don't know why we would want to add yet another way to override it. If the user sets up the system that way, it's up to them to deal with the lawyers, not us (as long as we disable that switch by default). :) Satoshi
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199508310852.BAA10861>