Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 17:18:30 -0700 From: "Michael C. Shultz" <ringworm@inbox.lv> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Drop of portindex Message-ID: <200409151718.31270.ringworm@inbox.lv> In-Reply-To: <200409151833.55714.michaelnottebrock@gmx.net> References: <20040915093120.3067472e@dolphin.local.net> <3.0.5.32.20040915104438.01f2dda0@sage-american.com> <200409151833.55714.michaelnottebrock@gmx.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wednesday 15 September 2004 09:33, Michael Nottebrock wrote: > On Wednesday 15 September 2004 17:44, Jack L. Stone wrote: > > At 11:21 AM 9.15.2004 -0400, Adam Weinberger wrote: > > >Let it be, people, and stop attacking other developers. > > > > > ># Adam > > > > Obviously, we all won't agree, but I think you should be more concerned > > about the damages this did to the ports' credibility. Up until now, I > > have always "trusted" the ports -- some of that has diminished because of > > this episode. > > Yes, that concerns me as well. One thing that surely can be learnt from > this episode is that ports committers (not excluding myself here) need to > be more careful about the licensing situation of software before committing > it to ports (I was told previous version of portindex had stuff like "(c) > 2004 Radim Kolar, GPL" in one source file and "public domain" in another, > but no general license attached to the whole package). > > I'm not saying we need to go debian on the ports-tree and waste valuable > time doing endless licensing reviews and ridiculous debating, but things > like portindex clearly must not be committed that easily in the future. I say in how many years that FreeBSD and ports existed has this sort of thing occurred? First time I've seen such a thing, and I've been using FreeBSD since Version 2.0 so I say let this episode pass, no need for any new rules. -Mike
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200409151718.31270.ringworm>