From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Oct 12 12:25:38 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ports@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0686116A41F for ; Wed, 12 Oct 2005 12:25:38 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from joe@zircon.seattle.wa.us) Received: from zircon.seattle.wa.us (dsl254-019-221.sea1.dsl.speakeasy.net [216.254.19.221]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 93EBE43D46 for ; Wed, 12 Oct 2005 12:25:37 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from joe@zircon.seattle.wa.us) Received: (qmail 34275 invoked from network); 12 Oct 2005 12:26:01 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO localhost.zircon.seattle.wa.us) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 12 Oct 2005 12:26:01 -0000 From: Joe Kelsey To: Mark Linimon In-Reply-To: <20051011145213.GA5714@soaustin.net> References: <200510071001.j97A1c23029414@freefall.freebsd.org> <1128726978.3009.63.camel@zircon.zircon.seattle.wa.us> <200510072327.j97NR4BN032652@bright.research.att.com> <20051010050828.GB17535@soaustin.net> <1128985526.3009.111.camel@zircon.zircon.seattle.wa.us> <20051011145213.GA5714@soaustin.net> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 05:26:00 -0700 Message-Id: <1129119960.3009.142.camel@zircon.zircon.seattle.wa.us> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.3 FreeBSD GNOME Team Port Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Bill Fenner , ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD ports: 1 unfetchable distfiles: shells/ksh93 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: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 12:25:38 -0000 On Tue, 2005-10-11 at 09:52 -0500, Mark Linimon wrote: > On Mon, Oct 10, 2005 at 04:05:26PM -0700, Joe Kelsey wrote: > > On Mon, 2005-10-10 at 00:08 -0500, Mark Linimon wrote: > > > On Fri, Oct 07, 2005 at 04:27:04PM -0700, Bill Fenner wrote: > > > > By the way, is it legally reasonable for the port to accept the > > > > pre-download license on behalf of the user? > > > > > > I don't think so. > > > > Glenn Fowler disagrees with you: > > Then that needs to be noted somewhere in the port, preferably in some > kind of file. (I don't know if we have any paradigm for this yet). > > My point is that we can't be in the habit of assuming such things are > OK unless we have been specifically told that they are. Think about your concerns just a little first. The OSDL created the Common Public License to make open source more acceptable to people who have difficulties with GPL and BSD licenses. As such, it should be treated the same in all situations. Either you ask questions of everyone downloading everything, or you really do not care. If someone wants a pure and unadulterated yes or no answer to a license question, then they can institute a method like the Java license, otherwise there is absolutely no point in doing anything unless you also ask the same questions of GPL and BSD licenses. /Joe > An upcoming portmgr initiative is to sweep the tree for questionable > licensing situations and fix them. Let's start identifying them now, > including the ones where we have been given permission like this. > > mcl