Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2016 08:26:31 +0200 From: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@FreeBSD.org> To: Kubilay Kocak <koobs@FreeBSD.org> Cc: 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: <20160909062630.hofrsvjajt2wcel4@ivaldir.etoilebsd.net> In-Reply-To: <190e2ef5-0f8c-efc3-bca1-7e5b541d3733@FreeBSD.org> References: <201609081315.u88DF6vL044982@repo.freebsd.org> <190e2ef5-0f8c-efc3-bca1-7e5b541d3733@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--vxelknq2atzc7cto Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Sep 09, 2016 at 12:03:00AM +1000, Kubilay Kocak wrote: > On 8/09/2016 11:15 PM, Dmitry Marakasov wrote: > > Author: amdmi3 Date: Thu Sep 8 13:15:06 2016 New Revision: 421549=20 > > URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/421549 > >=20 > > Log: Add support added for LICENSE=3DNONE, 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=20 > > license no distfiles or packages are distributed. >=20 > 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. >=20 > I truly do not intend to $bikeshed on the name, but are we saying: >=20 > That ports with no *explicit* license terms should not be > distributed/packaged by default? >=20 > If so, shouldn't empty(LICENSE) do this? >=20 > 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). >=20 > 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. >=20 > Might LICENSE=3DUNDEFINED be a less ambiguous term/name for this "cant > distribute/package because we want to be legally safe" behaviour? >=20 None is designed for software where the software/source where upstream clea= rly claims (I don't care, I am not a lawyer there is no license OR for dead ups= tream where no traces of any statement of a license can be fine in the sources). In both case that means there is NO license and then we should not distribu= te them at all. NONE is not intended to be a fallback because one hasn't set yet the LICENSE knob I do like the 'NONE' word, it sounds accurate and straight forward to me, b= ut I'm not native, if its sounds misleading we can still have a better word if= one proposes. But clearly imho UNDEFINED/UNCLEAR/UNKNOWN are representing what = we aiming at here. Best regards, Bapt --vxelknq2atzc7cto Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJX0lYWAAoJEGOJi9zxtz5axbMP/jOKWcFKn0/8jDNQcbBdZJXa MH2VH5ml9eC730SI+SsTbbbY9FPh0uTZ4oz+MNQw6/lVkzs0R/ewyJDUdGqMi3pz 82r/L7bi1aTiA7u5uOIGcN6tg4OHfaQ1eBkgNwqhp3kcqHBbde+G8BtEYFmTDuoE gqTcEyk6FzisG0inHGuA0/Ga0MoL+1HUxUpWLXEafGxdhTMsdq5VkjjevG415GlO lP16k3zpJSp8d6NamyYD3nxG+GTbilFBvh4b4mn8Bx4Eihwl1ZzvKu0uNVcSA8BG 9kOzDKzuB2zN2JfWnWQ950gflhZAHAqYPElgrSvHF4Uyuos0/NCgPirB5o7Pe9TP TCkPI219TOisP1DTCFJZIXeFXj0nVb8rhcr+AibXxkDlAqGsoiVn5Zsu9wYGSNw4 llXUSB5quoMdQGFRV+ZARKdGhE3qckfvr21gX+xqowpVWbziUWdCm0p0tP8NYjQB 4ZoTlGSICLaHnkhlmLIwnn3HHFGEBCZ+bSwO8SIK7Ap8wMtarV+4qtzM4ajuvnXD fy4jHoEkizTM/ARk0ShO4HcDbCoO+uLbkSJGv0w8NfzchXq1+Dp+zRY/oDfZqfm9 lvH/seUq6TtNADuboBoqSykCAuR+vLlXhACVor3Pc1BbKtYk4jx45xzO+A3zzgp7 ROI7YPrh4xpCWwjVWsxy =LJFl -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --vxelknq2atzc7cto--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20160909062630.hofrsvjajt2wcel4>