From owner-svn-ports-head@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Mar 11 12:29:04 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8833ABF1 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 12:29:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-qg0-x22c.google.com (mail-qg0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c04::22c]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 39ACBE29 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 12:29:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qg0-f44.google.com with SMTP id a108so24679345qge.3 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 05:29:03 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=eitanadler.com; s=0xdeadbeef; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=wft/VADAEgqbyi9r6vCgryZXJjwnxVhgnNma9IeZE+4=; b=XLgj0+ozgGnwpeONef++eXYcGVjLxIFYlZ6bQR5DVk1o8DxgjqGn4c+vi3ac3AcmFF eqXf4IUidm7X27XlVlqaYDUZm7nWcfkOdH/wA7ApQkeO38D9TzkhK6MCbPNXzBpkFPSv tXfWLhyqNBfD4t0fcnzmeKQjnhhyp3xS3rc6A= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=wft/VADAEgqbyi9r6vCgryZXJjwnxVhgnNma9IeZE+4=; b=CPpOQste5XCLnoj0hoFnSE1DACn6v7pUtj5qcv0443BpdjMtfA0XbQ8r30gnZLviqO hRqVhd2++OERiZz4KYwpqiPU88YEVWzWDUwcUWR80C1wqqk1KX3CWsogNHXJzy7KO8Ek p0U4nSSoK6Z9Ds3icL+8jzgP4ehIy4oYpd7S1xUXufbI/5xeFR6T/e9Ilx+SOc3+Ti9X qFtgY8YMYW+/ZL8LktPKWz5K1n9Redpoi1k0V5fYjzZFokQec/hxCz9Z+zbOuIGe+AvU YRmsgEpDf90xqsLDEwJY3I9WfL6HWKNGL6LCEgg9S3wPjcx8jcOXjEtSubZhUpl/R62m +lvA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmdRymHH1shiAtvyqjA365uB8j743C9LrOxuqfNVzmZBBGYu+lshFgnWgr13UcpWl85+/HO X-Received: by 10.229.213.194 with SMTP id gx2mr41030050qcb.16.1394540943364; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 05:29:03 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: lists@eitanadler.com Received: by 10.96.147.225 with HTTP; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 05:28:33 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20140311063746.GA40426@FreeBSD.org> References: <201402211451.s1LEpO30005480@svn.freebsd.org> <20140310141642.GA92282@FreeBSD.org> <724E420543C93474E8AD21FA@ogg.in.absolight.net> <20140311063746.GA40426@FreeBSD.org> From: Eitan Adler Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 08:28:33 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 4UBxeRNaqu9ySWXpp7f7dn55C9o Message-ID: Subject: Re: svn commit: r345472 - in head/mail: mmr smtpfeed To: Alexey Dokuchaev Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: Mathieu Arnold , svn-ports-head@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, Emanuel Haupt , ports-committers@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: SVN commit messages for the ports tree for head List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 12:29:04 -0000 On 11 March 2014 02:37, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote: > On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 07:43:09PM -0400, Eitan Adler wrote: >> LICENSE= is largely useless for actual lawyers, > > Can you elaborate on this a bit, for those of us who didn't get their feet > wet in the legal pool? I am not a laywer and don't give legal advice. However, LEGAL can not be trusted as a source of licensing information. Not only are there too many mistakes made (more than 0) but even when the license is set 'correctly' small differences between licenses may require additional work. For example, BSD style licensees require attribution but who to attribute is not listed. > If some well-defined terms of some license can be > abbreviated as, say, GPLv2, why do we have to provide a full copy in every > individual port? I did not say that LICENSE_FILE must always be installed. If the license is byte-for-byte identical to the template, a symlink is fine. >> but setting LICENSE_FILE can be kind of helpful. > > Shouldn't "Kind of" sound too vague to actual lawyers? :) I have never gone through the process of license compliance. From chatting with others who have, I am told that setting LICENSE_FILE can help with a first pass or some of the basic automatic work. >> In addition setting LICENSE_FILE can help to find mistakes in LICENSE= >> more easily. > > It can help, but it can be done without it, just by grepping through the > source tree for certain signatures. True. This just allows more reliable automation. >> IMHO LICENSE_FILE should always be set. > > Gentoo portages only set LICENSE in their ebuilds, AFAIR. Why they can > get away without LICENSE_FILE, and we cannot? Not to mention that this > knob uglifies the Makefile. We can get away with it (as in fact, we do). I wonder if we should. In any case, the LICENSE system needs a lot more work and some design input for Real Lawyers. ;) -- Eitan Adler Source, Ports, Doc committer Bugmeister, Ports Security teams