Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 13:27:52 +0000 From: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org> To: Bernhard Fr?hlich <decke@FreeBSD.org> Cc: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, ports-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r303225 - in head/emulators: virtualbox-ose virtualbox-ose-additions virtualbox-ose-kmod virtualbox-ose/files Message-ID: <20120827132752.GA59345@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <CAE-m3X2Fb4cgQHm5q0fm3A2N3E1gtbdXFYcEKUNMk=DvtA4g1g@mail.gmail.com> References: <201208271253.q7RCrfNp099110@svn.freebsd.org> <20120827130920.GA55054@FreeBSD.org> <CAE-m3X2Fb4cgQHm5q0fm3A2N3E1gtbdXFYcEKUNMk=DvtA4g1g@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 03:24:00PM +0200, Bernhard Fr?hlich wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@freebsd.org> wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 12:53:41PM +0000, Bernhard Froehlich wrote:
> >> +LICENSE= GPLv2
> >> +LICENSE_FILE= ${WRKSRC}/COPYING
> >
> > Why specify LICENSE_FILE for standard licenses? License framework was
> > supposed to reduce filesystem spamming with identical copies of GPL, not to
> > contribute to it further.
>
> Ever looked at that file before complaining? It is GPLv2 but with a few notes
> that make it worth keeping:
I was not complaining, I was asking. Given all the exceptions below, I in
turn wonder if it's OK to set LICENSE to GPLv2.
./danfe
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120827132752.GA59345>