From nobody Fri Apr 12 16:34:22 2024 X-Original-To: freebsd-ports@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4VGMbW3GC1z5HgWL for ; Fri, 12 Apr 2024 16:34:31 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from portmaster@bsdforge.com) Received: from udns.ultimatedns.net (udns.ultimatedns.net [24.113.41.81]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "ultimatedns.net", Issuer "R3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4VGMbV51ftz4sBt; Fri, 12 Apr 2024 16:34:30 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from portmaster@bsdforge.com) Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; none Received: from ultimatedns.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by udns.ultimatedns.net (8.16.1/8.16.1) with ESMTP id 43CGYNC3003425; Fri, 12 Apr 2024 09:34:29 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from portmaster@bsdforge.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=ultimatedns.net; s=mx99; t=1712939669; x=1712940269; r=y; bh=LewWrzQaUYXrP8JaChFWsL2eBoGkc6WsYg4/xrAJVY4=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=ApUvS1lYxb/npsdmv5O0ygZdufM9m4vjCtmjo8///miF3BT9HGgF/lgxsGQlj0l3P qf6DEVeN6jU7UaugOUj1arq/PUZrp267zcYQ9YZn7vsOwEz7HuJAqPxZv7Uw1HA4lT 9ZdPX9XXA+6gQIoUH/vKjPb4+OFkrFV9nj5hlAbYtRuD6ggz0QlPIOifEvM5XIMKTR AEHYm9G0u0EiTNqYKYKK0aFwMTQUv+6CZ4EBJX+yzpt49bLLBrxDEO5t7E9s3AYAh1 fKsvls2kzsH2Kl88O6Xr09rhUPBgEmeZaKboY2M7LAFX9PSJj2hUBw033i3T7SMnT5 0z4mtkNRXQz1g== List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-ports List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2024 09:34:22 -0700 From: Chris To: Brooks Davis Cc: freebsd-ports Subject: Re: Why is the BSD 1-Clause License not supported "out of the box" on FreeBSD? In-Reply-To: References: User-Agent: UDNSMS/17.0 Message-ID: <79ab7b7c9557c5c9be27bda142fac169@bsdforge.com> X-Sender: portmaster@bsdforge.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spamd-Bar: ---- X-Rspamd-Pre-Result: action=no action; module=replies; Message is reply to one we originated X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.00 / 15.00]; REPLY(-4.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:11404, ipnet:24.113.0.0/16, country:US] X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4VGMbV51ftz4sBt 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