Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 06:37:46 +0000 From: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org> To: Eitan Adler <eadler@freebsd.org> Cc: Mathieu Arnold <mat@freebsd.org>, 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: <20140311063746.GA40426@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <CAF6rxg=CnfZPHuxY8A3tz94ZntnWdv9wKbxBzCU2aJCAFDjTQA@mail.gmail.com> References: <201402211451.s1LEpO30005480@svn.freebsd.org> <20140310141642.GA92282@FreeBSD.org> <724E420543C93474E8AD21FA@ogg.in.absolight.net> <CAF6rxg=CnfZPHuxY8A3tz94ZntnWdv9wKbxBzCU2aJCAFDjTQA@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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? 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? If we must provide a copy nonetheless (e.g. under Section 1 of GPL), why can't pkg(8) put a symlink under /usr/local/share/licences/foo-1.42 to the verbatim GPL text? (Instead of umpteen number of small, identical files, none of them being a full copy, -- what we're doing now.) > but setting LICENSE_FILE can be kind of helpful. Shouldn't "Kind of" sound too vague to actual lawyers? :) > 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. > 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. ./danfe
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20140311063746.GA40426>