From owner-svn-ports-all@freebsd.org Fri Sep 9 06:54:48 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-ports-all@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 4041ABD1D88; Fri, 9 Sep 2016 06:54:48 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from danfe@freebsd.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206c::16:87]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33B62CD3; Fri, 9 Sep 2016 06:54:48 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from danfe@freebsd.org) Received: by freefall.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 1033) id 324B611D3; Fri, 9 Sep 2016 06:54:48 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2016 06:54:48 +0000 From: Alexey Dokuchaev To: Baptiste Daroussin Cc: Kubilay Kocak , Dmitry Marakasov , ports-committers@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r421549 - in head: . Mk Message-ID: <20160909065448.GA27893@FreeBSD.org> References: <201609081315.u88DF6vL044982@repo.freebsd.org> <190e2ef5-0f8c-efc3-bca1-7e5b541d3733@FreeBSD.org> <20160909062630.hofrsvjajt2wcel4@ivaldir.etoilebsd.net> <20160909062950.GA18015@FreeBSD.org> <20160909063718.icjcdcttv7lrndei@ivaldir.etoilebsd.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160909063718.icjcdcttv7lrndei@ivaldir.etoilebsd.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.1 (2016-04-27) X-BeenThere: svn-ports-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: SVN commit messages for the ports tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2016 06:54:48 -0000 On Fri, Sep 09, 2016 at 08:37:18AM +0200, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > On Fri, Sep 09, 2016 at 06:29:50AM +0000, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 09, 2016 at 08:26:31AM +0200, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > > > 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, but 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. > > > > I agree with Mark, UNCLEAR is a nicer and having least unwanted > > connotations word. > > What connotation? if the sources have NO license at all, for me it is not > unclear, it clearly has no license? am I missing something? IANAL, "you'll have to check with your own legal counsel regarding your particular project, but generally speaking, the absence of a license means that default copyright laws apply. This means that you retain all rights to your source code and that nobody else may reproduce, distribute, or create derivative works from your work." [1] That said, technically sources cannot have NO license at all. Another thing is that often there is (often implied) license, e.g. it is stated on the project page somewhere, but missing in the tarball, or is different in some or another way. I've seen people switched GPLv2->3, but forgot to update file headers and/or their COPYING file, etc. If we want to have LICENSE=NONE (isn't it the same as UNDEFINED?) and also UNCLEAR/UNKNOWN, then why can't one of these cases be simply undef(LICENSE)? If we want to have some specific word that covers missing/unclear/whatever common cases, I think UNCLEAR wins here. ./danfe [1] http://choosealicense.com/no-license/