Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 19:30:52 +0800 From: wen heping <wenheping@gmail.com> To: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@freebsd.org> Cc: Boris Samorodov <bsam@ipt.ru>, Wen Heping <wen@freebsd.org>, cvs-ports@freebsd.org, cvs-all@freebsd.org, ports-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/www/moinmoin Makefile distinfo pkg-plist Message-ID: <AANLkTi==dNCFzEnie5C7cuT8jSEHG5u8GFF5qZtERs04@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20110120103939.GA13852@FreeBSD.org> References: <201101180845.p0I8jubc025995@repoman.freebsd.org> <70181583@serv3.int.kfs.ru> <20110120092507.GA82095@FreeBSD.org> <AANLkTinyo6xbVscghWxEHazGwi0BzSiZwTUDkaAdq%2B6F@mail.gmail.com> <20110120103939.GA13852@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
2011/1/20 Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@freebsd.org>:
> On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 06:18:39PM +0800, wen heping wrote:
>> 2011/1/20 Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@freebsd.org>:
>> > On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 01:32:16PM +0300, Boris Samorodov wrote:
>> >> Wen Heping <wen@FreeBSD.org> writes:
>> >> > +LICENSE= GPLv2
>> >> > +LICENSE_FILE= ${WRKSRC}/docs/licenses/COPYING
>> >>
>> >> This is a general question, just picking this commit up.
>> >> Should we provide the license text if it's a standard one?
>> >> My vote is "no"...
>> >
>> > I would also said no. In fact, I find it abusive and wrong to use the
>> > LICENSE_FILE at all for standard licenses. Then problem is that people
>> > don't care, and we (ports people) do not do enough to educate them, and
>> > even sometimes encourage mistakes by committing bad submissions.
>>
>> I do not think it is a wrong use when set LICENSE_FILE even it's a
>> standard one. What is its harm? It could at least help the user to find
>> the license file easily.
>
> Licenses are installed in the standard place anyways, so finding it
Not all licenses are installed in the standard place, such as this
port www/moin.
> should not be a problem. However, explicit definition of LICENSE_FILE
> for standard licenses goes against general declarative idea of Makefile.
> When you ask the author, how is your software licensed, you expect to
> hear something like "BSD" or "GPLv2". This is sufficient in 99% cases.
If I am the author of the source, and I include my email or some other
extra message in the LICENSE. Then , when I was asked what is my
license.
I would say, my license are like "BSD" and "GPLv2", and please read my
license file too :)
Maybe, a more detailed guide of use bsd.license.mk should be created.
wen
> I think that usage of our LICENSE framework should follow these simple
> (and natural) way. More over, explicit LICENSE_FILE could be incomplete
> or non-verbatim copy of the standard license. Last but not least: why
> increase entropy?
>
> ./danfe
>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?AANLkTi==dNCFzEnie5C7cuT8jSEHG5u8GFF5qZtERs04>