From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Fri May 14 21:39:37 2021 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64FDB62CE28 for ; Fri, 14 May 2021 21:39:37 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from portmaster@bsdforge.com) Received: from udns.ultimatedns.net (static-24-113-41-81.wavecable.com [24.113.41.81]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "ultimatedns.net", Issuer "R3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4Fhhkc6XsWz3vp0 for ; Fri, 14 May 2021 21:39:36 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from portmaster@bsdforge.com) Received: from ultimatedns.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by udns.ultimatedns.net (8.16.1/8.16.1) with ESMTP id 14ELdLR4087690; Fri, 14 May 2021 14:39:28 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from portmaster@bsdforge.com) MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Fri, 14 May 2021 14:39:21 -0700 From: Chris To: Christoph Moench-Tegeder Cc: freebsd-ports Subject: Re: pkg-fallout: License not correctly defined: defining both LICENSE_FILE and LICENSE_TEXT is not allowed In-Reply-To: References: <50a92b1644e8fa43f16d59aa013ca10d@bsdforge.com> <6a5d5af22c863c1b5284885d39bf1129@bsdforge.com> User-Agent: UDNSMS/17.0 Message-ID: <7682e483d97004434d8b77ebdd1d0e3d@bsdforge.com> X-Sender: portmaster@bsdforge.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4Fhhkc6XsWz3vp0 X-Spamd-Bar: / Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; none X-Spamd-Result: default: False [0.00 / 15.00]; ASN(0.00)[asn:11404, ipnet:24.113.0.0/16, country:US]; local_wl_ip(0.00)[24.113.41.81] X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 May 2021 21:39:37 -0000 On 2021-05-14 14:19, Christoph Moench-Tegeder wrote: > ## Chris (portmaster@bsdforge.com): > >> > but the way it currently interacts >> > with your port is not that fine: in the very least, it overwrites >> > your LICENSE variables, which cannot be your intention. (Try >> > "make -V LICENSE" in kde-icons-nuovoext2). >> Sorry. My bad. LGPL3 is now included in the current LICENSE Templates. >> So LICENSE_FILE is redundant && pkg-fallout (the ports framework) was >> trying to use a "clue bat" to tell me so. ;-) > > Absolutely not. Due to the included file, your port has not set > the LICENSE to "LGPL3" but to "theme". That is a severe problem, > you're not allowed to just put another license on that port. It's > also not "look at the Makefile, the intention is clear": the > LICENSE field ends up in the package, and there's no weaseling > around the problem. > Code bugs may be annoying, but "wrong license" is a mistake with > potential to awaken the lawyers. Fix it. I'm confused by your reply. The problem I'm addressing in this case; is that the following as *always* worked for licenses which carried a copy in ${WRKSRC}/LICENSE_NAME: LICENSE= LICENSE_TYPE LICENSE_FILE= ${WRKSRC}/LICENSE_NAME however. I've recently been plagued with complaints from pkg-fallout: ===> License not correctly defined: defining both LICENSE_FILE and LICENSE_TEXT is not allowed make: exec(exit) failed (No such file or directory) *** Error code 1 When using that strategy. Sure enough; when performing a make test on the problem port. I get roughly the same ERROR. Curious I thought. Something in the ports framework must have changed. fe; LICENSE= LGPL3 LICENSE_FILE= ${WRKSRC}/COPYING fails. EVEN though the file ${WRKSRC}/COPYING exists. ALSO; LICENSE_FILE *and* LICENSE_TEXT are not BOTH defined, as stated in the ERROR output. Removing LICENSE_FILE returns; no problems with port. So there you have it. The long version. :-) > you're not allowed to just put another license on that port. I'm not. It's a verbatim LGPL3 port && license as reported within the port' source. :-) > Code bugs may be annoying, but "wrong license" is a mistake with > potential to awaken the lawyers. I'm well versed in law, and I've performed nothing contrary to the ports' source' intent. :-) --Chris > > Regards, > Christoph