Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 23:06:46 +0200 From: Ion-Mihai "IOnut" Tetcu <itetcu@FreeBSD.org> To: "Jeremy C. Reed" <reed@reedmedia.net> Cc: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: license change policy for patches added for ports? Message-ID: <20070205230646.1b91a5c8@it.buh.tecnik93.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.NEB.4.64.0702051251170.6862@glacier.reedmedia.net> References: <Pine.NEB.4.64.0702051251170.6862@glacier.reedmedia.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --] On Mon, 5 Feb 2007 12:56:24 -0600 (CST) "Jeremy C. Reed" <reed@reedmedia.net> wrote: > I am curious about if FreeBSD has a policy on licenses for patches > added to ports? > > I am looking through the FreeBSD Porter's handbook and don't see > anything mentioned yet. > > http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/porters-handbook/slow-patch.html > doesn't mention licensing. > > The port where I have heard complaints about is the added copyright to > ports/audio/cdparanoia > > Any comments? Any policy? > > One idea would be that anything added to FreeBSD ports files patches > should need to be under the same original license. But I understand > there could be exceptions. One of the PR guides[lines] mention that unless otherwise specified everything submitted is under BSD licence. But yeh, given the mad word we're living in maybe we should make this more visible. -- IOnut - Un^d^dregistered ;) FreeBSD "user" "Intellectual Property" is nowhere near as valuable as "Intellect" BOFH excuse #40: not enough memory, go get system upgrade [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFFx5xmBX6fi0k6KXsRAp0HAKCGbd0vJ4b0MI2nyHyvlxgtEMwsDwCdF4a+ PnegIoDwornoCuXBiH+Qz10= =Iqe3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070205230646.1b91a5c8>