Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2019 19:17:09 +0900 (JST) From: Yasuhiro KIMURA <yasu@utahime.org> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Bug report commit request Message-ID: <20190211.191709.469233083199067332.yasu@utahime.org> In-Reply-To: <20190211094449.GI2748@home.opsec.eu> References: <20190211091032.GH2748@home.opsec.eu> <20190211.183945.1315873006023602929.yasu@utahime.org> <20190211094449.GI2748@home.opsec.eu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
From: Kurt Jaeger <pi@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Bug report commit request Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2019 10:44:49 +0100 >> > What about the LICENSE=NONE setting ? It stops the port from being build in poudriere ? >> > Can the LICENSE line be just removed ? >> You can build this port with poudriere by adding >> 'LICENSES_ACCEPTED=NONE' in /usr/local/etc/poudriere.d/make.conf. > So, does it sound sensible to define a LICENSE that one has to special-case > immediatly just to do a test-build ? I mean, don't we all have better things > to do than shooting ourselves in the feet ? There is really no license information about this software. So according to license framework of FreeBSD ports there isn't anything wrong about adding 'LICENSE=NONE' in Makefile of this port. And if it is really problematic then what should be fixed is license framework itself or behavior of poudriere about it rather than license information of this port. Ad-hocism doesn't pay in the long run. --- Yasuhiro KIMURA
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20190211.191709.469233083199067332.yasu>