Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2013 05:10:15 -0500 From: Bryan Drewery <bdrewery@FreeBSD.org> To: Hiroki Sato <hrs@FreeBSD.org> Cc: "svn-ports-head@FreeBSD.org" <svn-ports-head@FreeBSD.org>, "danfe@FreeBSD.org" <danfe@FreeBSD.org>, "svn-ports-all@FreeBSD.org" <svn-ports-all@FreeBSD.org>, "az@FreeBSD.org" <az@FreeBSD.org>, "ports-committers@FreeBSD.org" <ports-committers@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: svn commit: r320152 - head/net/v6eval Message-ID: <81E824B6-4E1C-4A6B-8C8F-0762F73CBE5A@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20130608.170758.1124164232345708295.hrs@allbsd.org> References: <20130607074237.GA50645@FreeBSD.org> <20130607.170101.1161666929659666690.hrs@allbsd.org> <20130607094637.GA84832@FreeBSD.org> <20130608.170758.1124164232345708295.hrs@allbsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Jun 8, 2013, at 3:07, Hiroki Sato <hrs@FreeBSD.org> wrote: > Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.ORG> wrote > in <20130607094637.GA84832@FreeBSD.org>: >=20 > da> On Fri, Jun 07, 2013 at 05:01:01PM +0900, Hiroki Sato wrote: > da> > Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.ORG> wrote > da> > da> Can you elaborate on why you insist on standard license file to b= e > da> > da> explicitly set instead of using the one from the pool? I know t= hat > da> > da> some of us are in the middle of cleaning the ports tree from suc= h > da> > da> cases. > da> > > da> > Just because it includes copyright notice and not exactly the same a= s > da> > the standard template. I have converted several ports to use > da> > da> Does it make sense to convince upstream to bring their license text to= the > da> standard template? >=20 > This software will never updated because the project was concluded. >=20 > da> > LICENSE_FILE in order to make the packages include the license file= s > da> > which contain copyright notice, and to remove the license files fro= m > da> > PORTDOCS. Is this usage incorrect? > da> > da> This usage is correct: license files should not be part of PORTDOCS, b= ut > da> I would take it further and say that we should not abuse LICENSE_FILE f= or > da> standard licenses. >=20 > I still do not understand what is "abuse" here. We do not have > Templates/Licenses/BSD, and a template of BSD license does not make > sense because it always needs who the copyright holder is. Something > like "see this URL" does not work at least for BSD license because it > requires the copyright notice and conditions *in the distribution*. Yes. Please do respect the licenses.=20 >=20 > It is not uncommon that a pre-built package of a small BSD-licensed > software contains only binaries and a COPYING file. Even if it is a > standard BSD license, we need to add the COPYING file to PLIST in > some way due to the following condition: >=20 > |2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright > | notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in > | the documentation and/or other materials provided with the > | distribution. >=20 > A typical example in ports I maintain is net/cvsync. It uses > standard 3-clause BSD license. Do you think LICENSE_FILE in > cvsync/Makefile should be removed, too? >=20 > da> > If this is not allowed, I am wondering why we allow specifying > da> > LICENSE_FILE for well-known licenses. > da> > da> Nothing is technically not allowed here; right now it is still more of= a > da> matter of personal taste. I am not sure if denying setting LICENSE_FI= LE > da> for well-known licenses is OK, IANAL. But given the fact that answer t= o > da> a question "what's your code's licenses" is typically one word, I do n= ot > da> support setting LICENSE_FILE for those licenses, when simple BSD/GPL/M= IT > da> seems already being sufficient by common practice. >=20 > What I meant is not technical one. In my understanding, what is > allowed for known licenses is clearly described in the following > sentences in bsd.license.mk: >=20 > # Case 1: license defined in the framework (aka "known"). > # > # In this case the only allowed variables to set are LICENSE_FILE and > # LICENSE_DISTFILES. The rest are managed by the framework and are not all= owed > # to change. >=20 > I thought LICENSE_FILE was just for COPYING file when it was in the > distfile and there was no applicable one in Templates/Licenses. >=20 > For GPL and other licenses which do not require a license text is > included in the distribution, no LICENSE_FILE is fine. However, > licenses like BSD and MIT are different. If LICENSE_FILE is not > supposed to be used for including COPYING file when it is a standard > license, I will remove it from my ports and re-add COPYING file into > pkg-plist. For some cases, as you say, the COPYING file is boilerplate and contains no c= ustomizations. In those cases it makes sense to use standard. If its been cu= stomized with names, years, links, it must be included. I'm not sure why this issue keeps coming up. These licenses must be respecte= d. >=20 > -- Hiroki
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?81E824B6-4E1C-4A6B-8C8F-0762F73CBE5A>