From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jun 15 07:21:19 2010 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 A37AF106566B for ; Tue, 15 Jun 2010 07:21:19 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from m.seaman@infracaninophile.co.uk) Received: from smtp.infracaninophile.co.uk (gate6.infracaninophile.co.uk [IPv6:2001:8b0:151:1::1]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10C718FC14 for ; Tue, 15 Jun 2010 07:21:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from seedling.black-earth.co.uk (seedling.black-earth.co.uk [81.187.76.163]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp.infracaninophile.co.uk (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id o5F7L5uC011119 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 15 Jun 2010 08:21:06 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from m.seaman@infracaninophile.co.uk) Message-ID: <4C1729E1.60000@infracaninophile.co.uk> Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 08:21:05 +0100 From: Matthew Seaman Organization: Infracaninophile User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100317 Thunderbird/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eric References: In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.96.1 at lucid-nonsense.infracaninophile.co.uk X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50,DKIM_ADSP_ALL, SPF_FAIL autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on lucid-nonsense.infracaninophile.co.uk Cc: "freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org" Subject: Re: License Framework: Develop Best Practices 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: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 07:21:19 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 15/06/2010 07:46:27, Eric wrote: > It would seem from reading the various posting that the two missing features > are some sort of clean way of saying "this license or higher" and possibly > something along the lines of "like this licence" for cases where 99% is the > same as an existing OS licence, but I guess that last one comes down to a > point of purpose. Is the licence framework supposed to be a solid legal > structure or is it much like the pkg-descriptions just something we can > filter against and use to help guide us to the ports we want to install? I don't think the FreeBSD project could afford to have this license cataloging scheme regularly inspected by appropriate legal counsel for each of the various different jurisdictions around the world and for them to approve it as accurate and legally watertight. Given potential liabilities should the project attempt a binding framework without such checking, it would be horribly exposed should some FreeBSD user suffer and attempt to recoup consequential losses. Therefore, this should only be done on a 'best efforts' basis, and there should be prominent warnings that the license data may or may not be accurate and that end users *must* make their own verification that all software they are using is appropriately licensed. I feel that at this point I should declare that IANAL, so take everything I say here not as advice, but as my personal opinion. Cheers, Matthew - -- Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 7 Priory Courtyard Flat 3 PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Ramsgate JID: matthew@infracaninophile.co.uk Kent, CT11 9PW -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.14 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkwXKeEACgkQ8Mjk52CukIxs9QCeNF+rjCoyPKiiDT5lUVN2XBzd QyUAni4ARLODukPokjgcrUuRp9OAPu22 =gDf+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----