From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jan 18 09:34:17 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA77B106566B for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 09:34:17 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from johans@stack.nl) Received: from mx1.stack.nl (relay04.stack.nl [IPv6:2001:610:1108:5010::107]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7402D8FC08 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 09:34:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mx1.stack.nl (Postfix, from userid 65534) id C5CAD1E4662; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:34:16 +0100 (CET) X-Spam-DCC: x.dcc-servers: scanner01.stack.nl 104; Body=2 Fuz1=2 Fuz2=2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on scanner01.stack.nl X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,NO_RELAYS autolearn=unavailable version=3.2.5 X-Spam-Relay-Country: _RELAYCOUNTRY_ Received: from mud.stack.nl (mud.stack.nl [IPv6:2001:610:1108:5011::70]) by mx1.stack.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCC9C1E4661; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:34:11 +0100 (CET) Received: by mud.stack.nl (Postfix, from userid 801) id B2B3111431; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:34:11 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:34:11 +0100 From: Johan van Selst To: Nikola =?utf-8?B?TGXEjWnEhw==?= Message-ID: <20120118093411.GA11498@mud.stack.nl> References: <201201162339.q0GNdG1V064832@anthesphoria.net> <201201170049.q0H0nTjC065207@anthesphoria.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="W/nzBZO5zC0uMSeA" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201201170049.q0H0nTjC065207@anthesphoria.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Cc: Eitan Adler , FreeBSD Ports Subject: Re: Adding licensing info to my ports: some questions X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 09:34:18 -0000 --W/nzBZO5zC0uMSeA Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Nikola Le=C4=8Di=C4=87 wrote: > Anyway, it wasn't clear from the bsd.licenses.mk that we should use > 'multi' in situations of 'any later version'. This means that all > licensing info of eg. GPL2+ ports must be updated when GPL4 appears... No, we should not use this. Not just because of the potential of having to check and correct every port when GPLv4 appears. In my book, "licenced under GPLv2 or GPLv3" is something fundamentally different =66rom "licenced under GPLv2 or any later version". The licence framework should be able to make this distinction. Another issue is that the licence infrastructure seems to be making statements about the licence of an application, while the committers only tend to look at individual source packages. What would be the licence of an application whose source is published under BSD licence, but that is linked with both GPv3 and OpenSSL-libraries? I tend to agree with Doug and others that it is probably better to scrap the entire idea. Making assertions about licences and what is accepted is a hairy field, best left to experts. Regards, Johan --W/nzBZO5zC0uMSeA Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iF4EAREIAAYFAk8WkhIACgkQAEpMHW8nCPRKaAEAo/rUDyK0AzhtH0zYwrAGBlIz C/9HgIMWcXeWveX0kuQA/iE1j/g24DX7fj6d1y0pvFV7obbRLhDfTro1m9PMCknD =3LO2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --W/nzBZO5zC0uMSeA--