Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 17 Jan 2012 23:35:24 +0100
From:      Torfinn Ingolfsen <tingox@gmail.com>
To:        FreeBSD Ports ML <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>
Subject:   Re: Adding licensing info to my ports: some questions
Message-ID:  <CAJ_iqtZY0zHHAG3-y=9Xsbsb-szpio5Hh277X4coGxqcqvpsLg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1201171240490.27688@wonkity.com>
References:  <201201162339.q0GNdG1V064832@anthesphoria.net> <CAF6rxg=N1OcJOyfg40K8FkuzbtmS8s_R8v7VCLOCapzfmWQAtQ@mail.gmail.com> <4F1561FE.5080801@gmail.com> <4F15C010.6010707@FreeBSD.org> <20120117184322.GA19794@hemlock.hydra> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1201171240490.27688@wonkity.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hello,

On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 8:46 PM, Warren Block <wblock@wonkity.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 17 Jan 2012, Chad Perrin wrote:
>
>  On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 10:38:08AM -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
>>
>>> On 01/17/2012 03:56, Vitaly Magerya wrote:
>>>
>>>> Eitan Adler wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 1) Will licensing section ever appear in the Porters Handbook? :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Is someone actually working on it? If so, and is there some sort of
>>>> target timeline?
>>>>
>>>> Back in 2010 when the framework was introduced, my general impression
>>>> was that maintainers where advised to wait with the adoption until that
>>>> chapter is written...
>>>>
>>>
>>> Personally I think we should scrap the whole thing. It is an interesting
>>> idea, but the implementation has never fleshed out. It's also completely
>>> unclear what any of it means from an actual legal standpoint, and
>>> personally I'm not convinced that we aren't making things worse for the
>>> project by doing this.
>>>
>>
>> How?  I don't see the problem that makes things worse, I guess.
>>
>
> In my not-a-lawyer view, I wonder if it puts some responsibility for
> accurately representing a license on FreeBSD and the ports system.  "We
> used this software because the FreeBSD ports system said the license was
> compatible for our use.  Now it turns out otherwise, and we have millions
> in damages..."
>
> There's the potential for someone to intentionally put the wrong license
> in a port to create such a situation.  And to protect against that, will
> committers have to verify the license?


But surely this framework is for information purposes only?
With standard disclaimers:
"if you really want to be sure, please check the official source, things
might have changed since the port was last updated"
"buyer (or porst user) beware"

Anything can go wrong, but it is (IMO) quite easy to state the intention of
the FreeBSD Project in this case.
But that requires that someone writes the chapter about this in the Porters
Handbook...
-- 
Regards,
Torfinn Ingolfsen



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAJ_iqtZY0zHHAG3-y=9Xsbsb-szpio5Hh277X4coGxqcqvpsLg>