From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jun 18 14:23:59 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35B40106566B for ; Mon, 18 Jun 2012 14:23:59 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from code@apotheon.net) Received: from oproxy1-pub.bluehost.com (oproxy1.bluehost.com [IPv6:2605:dc00:100:2::a1]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id EE2838FC14 for ; Mon, 18 Jun 2012 14:23:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 6069 invoked by uid 0); 18 Jun 2012 14:23:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO box543.bluehost.com) (74.220.219.143) by oproxy1.bluehost.com with SMTP; 18 Jun 2012 14:23:58 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=apotheon.net; s=default; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version:References:Message-ID:Subject:To:From:Date; bh=gDB7VUjW47W9cIxr76krIDthGD52bYRYvD8FpXlz1JI=; b=EDzAl6pvONJSOp5MsSll2IZVO27Bv801KRrFzq1ZpJg4Y9aXO8V8zLRlBomykI/0KBNQSjIENZZ74K1ib9uzC0KcHrYn8hfDvdIHq0zX1T7dHgmLxvb/qcQQsMRsih2e; Received: from [24.8.180.234] (port=60443 helo=localhost) by box543.bluehost.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Sgcrz-0003re-IH for freebsd-ports@freebsd.org; Mon, 18 Jun 2012 08:23:55 -0600 Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 08:23:54 -0600 From: Chad Perrin To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20120618142353.GA17329@hemlock.hydra> References: <4FDF0998.3000005@FreeBSD.org> <4FDF0F41.3020703@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4FDF0F41.3020703@gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Identified-User: {2737:box543.bluehost.com:apotheon:apotheon.net} {sentby:smtp auth 24.8.180.234 authed with code@apotheon.net} Subject: Re: custom license on new port? X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 14:23:59 -0000 On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 02:21:37PM +0300, Vitaly Magerya wrote: > Michael Scheidell wrote: > > got a new port. submitted by the copyright owner and author. > > for reference, pr ports/168832 > > > > there is no LICENSE= in the Makefile, no LICENSE.txt in the > > distribution, but it does have the attached in the main.c file. > > > > [...] > > > > * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without > > * modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions > > * are met: > > * 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright > > * notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. > > * 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright > > * notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the > > * documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. > > * > > * THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE REGENTS AND CONTRIBUTORS ``AS IS'' AND > > * ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE > > * IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE > > * ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE REGENTS OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE > > * FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL > > * DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS > > * OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) > > * HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT > > * LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY > > * OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF > > * SUCH DAMAGE. > > That is 2-clause BSD [1], aka the FreeBSD license [2], so LICENSE=BSD > should be sufficient if you want to add that (my understanding is that > the license framework is unused and should probably be removed). I don't know if it's considered "unused" by the ports system committers, but as a port maintainer and a user I actually get some use from the license framework. As such, I hope the plan is not to remove the license framework, but even if there is such a plan I think it would probably be a good idea to specify license in the port Makefile when at all reasonable to do so, considering how simple it is to do so and the fact it may be useful to some users. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]