From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jun 15 20:32:32 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 A9CB7106567D for ; Tue, 15 Jun 2010 20:32:32 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from marco.broeder@gmx.eu) Received: from mail.gmx.net (mail.gmx.net [213.165.64.20]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D8CEE8FC25 for ; Tue, 15 Jun 2010 20:32:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 15 Jun 2010 20:32:21 -0000 Received: from port-92-195-115-86.dynamic.qsc.de (EHLO localhost) [92.195.115.86] by mail.gmx.net (mp040) with SMTP; 15 Jun 2010 22:32:21 +0200 X-Authenticated: #23197544 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX19bz9hi+E5bf3gJ0dC0XKiuDIUSKXyrgWB13xoC6J hRhxoClxibkkgT From: Marco =?iso-8859-1?q?Br=F6der?= To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 22:29:54 +0200 User-Agent: KMail (FreeBSD) References: <201006150247.20325.marco.broeder@gmx.eu> <6335CF3A-9845-48A6-B7E7-AB8252C123B1@mac.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart12694680.zloILexVBZ"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha256 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201006152229.56351.marco.broeder@gmx.eu> X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Subject: Re: License Framework: Develop Best Practices X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: marco.broeder@gmx.eu List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 20:32:32 -0000 --nextPart12694680.zloILexVBZ Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue June 15 2010 09:10:49 Janne Snabb wrote: > As a previous poster pointed out, I also think that the different > BSD licences should be separated. Yes, they really are different licenses. Who else should it know better than the FreeBSD Project (and NetBSD, OpenBS= D,=20 DragonflyBSD, ...)? ;-) =20 > I also second the previous posters' opinion that in specifying GPL > related licenses, it is necessary to distinguish between "this > version only" and "or any later version". It makes a big difference > in license compatibility. Yeah, thanks! > If these distinctions are not made, the whole framework is not very > useful. I would rather see it to be useful. As I wrote ... =2D-=20 Regards --nextPart12694680.zloILexVBZ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIcBAABCAAGBQJMF+LEAAoJEEjQ6Txo1AoUZ1cP/jyvhiFqmLq0gfHC+hB33uKN tYCvzft4Y8xzQXbee+WPwUnP3Jhdv87docoCUjcFzovWLZ0mkCWmu9qslILKNJwc AigEFokI0zh9Bn5NZEzSFBmKbhjmtdDbBSyRU09lnBkzRrgorKF+XjhPgOtMqFaM 4qX/CEMmjnu6Ef4zuPgzvQqj/19QLVFiX6sJe9v47Sqce6xBP7v9xdt0gC4C/qHx IeNvuuP3/AmHDEZThxZaVuDIM6YsON1h5afPt4LIlC0GzxUiF1dr1HsiGG5Ypvbs oO1iD+U47Qrsm8aeuaGbu+kKXYYfZg7n/fTs4Us0UFo1JSv3A468e2/YsMfyhHFD HLMloccfkBnkpFxRixTwD6SbjGxR7zv1E53xoAL+A+we1fr+OjifV7KN6ELScyD2 PnwxneQnQAS8X4CUG6Vhs8kk7Vkj1lZlKUUJyULGjGjuktmiSOlpnInY9Elkx/zz rGv3nrhBthQUa7aek1LLHhu3jwxMfVH5NfuvXLgg6txVfXp1HdEyFnTGFNLeC7yb ivxDicyRWaMNpeVhYzqEvVL1P0PHTjuBJbz+EyWwEcF75u223e08daLrCRLoXGBb iz12h8R7LAGrRCs/fuRQ7edjBxSmv83zffd0MOM4a+OXxcfX43/CAMY0/VLA3z0y r2c1br8nSqljR39rnTnx =yJfW -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart12694680.zloILexVBZ--