Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2024 09:34:22 -0700 From: Chris <portmaster@bsdforge.com> To: Brooks Davis <brooks@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-ports <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Why is the BSD 1-Clause License not supported "out of the box" on FreeBSD? Message-ID: <79ab7b7c9557c5c9be27bda142fac169@bsdforge.com> In-Reply-To: <ZhlgifyVOp6cy7Ka@spindle.one-eyed-alien.net> References: <e0b649ac0148578aaed233c33210bd07@bsdforge.com> <ZhlgifyVOp6cy7Ka@spindle.one-eyed-alien.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2024-04-12 09:25, Brooks Davis wrote: > On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 11:48:16PM -0700, Chris wrote: >> I'm doing a full sweep of ports missing LICENSE and I continue >> to have to jump through additional hurdles to represent the >> BSD 1-Clause License in ports that use it. This has been puzzling >> be for some time. So I'm asking. Why isn't it represented in >> Mk/bsdlicenses.db.mk along with all the other BSD/MIT licenses? >> Is there something in it that doesn't agree with the Foundations >> policies? I've read the License Guide[1]. It's listed as OSI >> approved[2] and it has an SPDX-License-Identifier[3]. Is this an >> appropriate place to ask this question? Or is this something I >> need to direct to core@ ? > > It's uncommon (being AFACT an overly verbose version of MIT) so no one > added it? It appears to be terse as compared to 2,3-clause && MIT. > > Why not submit a patch instead of assuming a conspiracy? Conspiracy? I don't follow. I'm just curious. As every other n-clause version is in the bsdlicenses.db.mk file. It just figured, there must be something wrong with the one-clause. I guess I'll whip up a patch. Thanks for taking the time to reply, Brooks. > > -- Brooks -- --Chris Hutchinson
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?79ab7b7c9557c5c9be27bda142fac169>