From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Wed Sep 14 08:12:27 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4DB0BDAD5E for ; Wed, 14 Sep 2016 08:12:27 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from lists@opsec.eu) Received: from mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (mailman.ysv.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::50:5]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4E4DE9B for ; Wed, 14 Sep 2016 08:12:27 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from lists@opsec.eu) Received: by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) id D4373BDAD5D; Wed, 14 Sep 2016 08:12:27 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: ports@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3DFDBDAD5C for ; Wed, 14 Sep 2016 08:12:27 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from lists@opsec.eu) Received: from home.opsec.eu (home.opsec.eu [IPv6:2001:14f8:200::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9B316E99 for ; Wed, 14 Sep 2016 08:12:27 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from lists@opsec.eu) Received: from pi by home.opsec.eu with local (Exim 4.87 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1bk5Iv-000IUa-GX; Wed, 14 Sep 2016 10:12:25 +0200 Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2016 10:12:25 +0200 From: Kurt Jaeger To: Bob Eager Cc: ports@freeBSD.org Subject: Re: LICENSE documentation Message-ID: <20160914081225.GK85563@home.opsec.eu> References: <20160914081915.72e9cf14@raksha.tavi.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160914081915.72e9cf14@raksha.tavi.co.uk> X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2016 08:12:28 -0000 Hi! > I recently had a minor patch (to one of the ports I maintain) bounced > because I hadn't specified a LICENSE. > > This port never did have LICENSE, and it had been updated recently with > no issues. However, I was told that "I don't see any mention of any > kind of license in the package or on the site, so it should be > LICENSE= NONE. Note that without clear licensing terms it's impossible > to legally use and redistribute the code." > > (I did erroneously interpret that, initially, to be saying that there > MUST be a real license specified, although I realise from the above > that NONE is acceptable (and presumably meets the criteria for "clear > licensing terms")). Even the "NONE" is in discussion, if it should be UNDEFINED or UNKNOWN or... > Let me make it absolutely clear that I am not criticising or > questioning the committers; they are just doing their job. > > However, I wonder if two things ought to be done: > > 1) There should be something in the Porter's Handbook about LICENSE. > There is little or none, merely material about licensing in a more > general sense. I would produce an update myself, but given the above, I > am probably not the best person! There are two text drafts in discussion, some of them for a long time: https://reviews.freebsd.org/D56 https://reviews.freebsd.org/D7849 > 2) portlint currently says: "WARN: Makefile: Consider defining LICENSE. > 0 fatal errors and 1 warning found." This is not really correct if > LICENSE is mandatory. Yes, that's unfortunate 8-} -- pi@opsec.eu +49 171 3101372 4 years to go !