Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2013 17:07:58 +0900 (JST) From: Hiroki Sato <hrs@FreeBSD.org> To: danfe@FreeBSD.org Cc: svn-ports-head@FreeBSD.org, svn-ports-all@FreeBSD.org, az@FreeBSD.org, ports-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r320152 - head/net/v6eval Message-ID: <20130608.170758.1124164232345708295.hrs@allbsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20130607094637.GA84832@FreeBSD.org> References: <20130607074237.GA50645@FreeBSD.org> <20130607.170101.1161666929659666690.hrs@allbsd.org> <20130607094637.GA84832@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
----Security_Multipart(Sat_Jun__8_17_07_58_2013_488)-- Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.ORG> wrote in <20130607094637.GA84832@FreeBSD.org>: 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 be da> > da> explicitly set instead of using the one from the pool? I know that da> > da> some of us are in the middle of cleaning the ports tree from such da> > da> cases. da> > da> > Just because it includes copyright notice and not exactly the same as 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? This software will never updated because the project was concluded. da> > LICENSE_FILE in order to make the packages include the license files da> > which contain copyright notice, and to remove the license files from da> > PORTDOCS. Is this usage incorrect? da> da> This usage is correct: license files should not be part of PORTDOCS, but da> I would take it further and say that we should not abuse LICENSE_FILE for da> standard licenses. 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*. 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: |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. 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? 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_FILE da> for well-known licenses is OK, IANAL. But given the fact that answer to da> a question "what's your code's licenses" is typically one word, I do not da> support setting LICENSE_FILE for those licenses, when simple BSD/GPL/MIT da> seems already being sufficient by common practice. 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: # 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 allowed # to change. I thought LICENSE_FILE was just for COPYING file when it was in the distfile and there was no applicable one in Templates/Licenses. 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. -- Hiroki ----Security_Multipart(Sat_Jun__8_17_07_58_2013_488)-- Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.13 (FreeBSD) iEYEABECAAYFAlGy5l4ACgkQTyzT2CeTzy1FMQCgqq/0DSeq9vT4QO1yDpgZTg// QkQAn3moBuHmXjKenyvrfoenHuJZB1fi =2x+8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ----Security_Multipart(Sat_Jun__8_17_07_58_2013_488)----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20130608.170758.1124164232345708295.hrs>