Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2016 00:03:00 +1000 From: Kubilay Kocak <koobs@FreeBSD.org> To: Dmitry Marakasov <amdmi3@FreeBSD.org>, ports-committers@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r421549 - in head: . Mk Message-ID: <190e2ef5-0f8c-efc3-bca1-7e5b541d3733@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <201609081315.u88DF6vL044982@repo.freebsd.org> References: <201609081315.u88DF6vL044982@repo.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 8/09/2016 11:15 PM, Dmitry Marakasov wrote: > Author: amdmi3 Date: Thu Sep 8 13:15:06 2016 New Revision: 421549 > URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/421549 > > Log: Add support added for LICENSE=NONE, use it when the port > doesn't have cleanly defined licensing terms. Note that without > clean license allowing you to use and distribute the code it would be > be illegal to do so in many jurisdictions, so for ports with NONE > license no distfiles or packages are distributed. I'm glad this finally got added, though I'm worried that NONE is ambiguous and will unnecessarily cause otherwise package'able / distribute'able software to not be (inadvertently), and that None says more than we want its behaviour to mean. I truly do not intend to $bikeshed on the name, but are we saying: That ports with no *explicit* license terms should not be distributed/packaged by default? If so, shouldn't empty(LICENSE) do this? If all this does is avoid not having a whole bunch of existing ports not be packaged because they don't yet have LICENSE set, let's fix that. It's a great incentive to maintainers to get them added (explicitly). We could then even upgrade adding LICENSE to a requirement for ports rather than being optional (as it has been). What if a piece of software doesn't have 'cleanly' (what is the actual definition we should use?) defined license terms, but says/implies by some other method that it is free to be distributed/packaged? Say for example the software has debian/spec files in the sources but otherwise says nothing. Might LICENSE=UNDEFINED be a less ambiguous term/name for this "cant distribute/package because we want to be legally safe" behaviour? ./koobs > While here, fix trailing whitespace in CHANGES. > > Approved by: portmgr (bapt) Differential Revision: D7816 > > Modified: head/CHANGES head/Mk/bsd.licenses.db.mk > > Modified: head/CHANGES > ============================================================================== > > --- head/CHANGES Thu Sep 8 13:03:13 2016 (r421548) > +++ head/CHANGES Thu Sep 8 13:15:06 2016 (r421549) @@ -10,6 +10,15 > @@ in the release notes and/or placed into > > All ports committers are allowed to commit to this file. > > +20160908: +AUTHOR: amdmi3@FreeBSD.org + + Support has been added > for NONE license, use it when the port doesn't + have cleanly > defined licensing terms. Note that without clean license + allowing > you to use and distribute the code it would be be illegal to do + so > in many jurisdictions, so for ports with NONE license no distfiles > or + packages are distributed. + 20160824: AUTHOR: mat@FreeBSD.org > > @@ -39,16 +48,16 @@ AUTHOR: mat@FreeBSD.org 20160824: AUTHOR: > kde@FreeBSD.org > > - A new USES file has been introduced: USES=kde:4, which replaces > the old - bsd.kde4.mk file in preparation for upcoming KDE > Frameworks and Plasma5 - ports. - - Ports depending on KDE4 have to > switch from + A new USES file has been introduced: USES=kde:4, which > replaces the old + bsd.kde4.mk file in preparation for upcoming KDE > Frameworks and Plasma5 + ports. + + Ports depending on KDE4 have to > switch from USE_KDE4=foo bar - to + to USES=kde:4 USE_KDE=foo bar - > and make sure to switch from using KDE4_PREFIX to the new name > KDE_PREFIX + and make sure to switch from using KDE4_PREFIX to the > new name KDE_PREFIX in the Makefiles as well as plists. > > 20160821: > > Modified: head/Mk/bsd.licenses.db.mk > ============================================================================== > > --- head/Mk/bsd.licenses.db.mk Thu Sep 8 13:03:13 2016 (r421548) > +++ head/Mk/bsd.licenses.db.mk Thu Sep 8 13:15:06 2016 (r421549) @@ > -63,6 +63,9 @@ _LICENSE_LIST+= ART10 ARTPERL10 ART20 # PHP family > _LICENSE_LIST+= PHP202 PHP30 PHP301 > > +# Extras +_LICENSE_LIST+= NONE + # List of groups (only names must > be present) > > _LICENSE_NAME_FSF= Free Software Foundation Approved @@ -268,6 > +271,10 @@ _LICENSE_GROUPS_PSFL= FSF GPL OSI _LICENSE_NAME_RUBY= Ruby > License _LICENSE_GROUPS_RUBY= FSF > > +_LICENSE_NAME_NONE= No license specified +_LICENSE_GROUPS_NONE= # > empty +_LICENSE_PERMS_NONE= auto-accept + _LICENSE_NAME_ZLIB= zlib > License _LICENSE_GROUPS_ZLIB= GPL FSF OSI > >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?190e2ef5-0f8c-efc3-bca1-7e5b541d3733>