From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Sep 18 05:50:33 2004 Return-Path: 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 81CA616A4CE for ; Sat, 18 Sep 2004 05:50:33 +0000 (GMT) Received: from misty.eyesbeyond.com (glewis.dsl.xmission.com [166.70.56.15]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B48EB43D66 for ; Sat, 18 Sep 2004 05:50:32 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from glewis@eyesbeyond.com) Received: from misty.eyesbeyond.com (localhost.eyesbeyond.com [127.0.0.1]) i8I5nwam075906; Fri, 17 Sep 2004 23:49:59 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from glewis@eyesbeyond.com) Received: (from glewis@localhost) by misty.eyesbeyond.com (8.12.11/8.12.11/Submit) id i8I5nuKP075905; Fri, 17 Sep 2004 23:49:56 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from glewis@eyesbeyond.com) X-Authentication-Warning: misty.eyesbeyond.com: glewis set sender to glewis@eyesbeyond.com using -f Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 23:49:56 -0600 From: Greg Lewis To: Mark Linimon Message-ID: <20040918054956.GA75809@misty.eyesbeyond.com> References: <20040915093120.3067472e@dolphin.local.net> <20040915175615.11c92103@zork> <20040916004320.GB68701@thought.org> <200409152056.38900.linimon@lonesome.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200409152056.38900.linimon@lonesome.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i cc: Gary Kline cc: Robin Schoonover cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org cc: "Jack L. Stone" Subject: Re: Drop of portindex X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 05:50:33 -0000 On Wed, Sep 15, 2004 at 08:56:38PM -0500, Mark Linimon wrote: > On Wednesday 15 September 2004 07:43 pm, Gary Kline wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 15, 2004 at 05:56:15PM -0600, Robin Schoonover wrote: > > > I think we may want to record what the license for the port is in the > > > Makefile. For example: > > > > > > LICENSE= GPL > > > > > > If multiple parts are somehow under multiple licenses, we could also do: > > > > > > LICENSE= GPL BSD > > This was discussed recently and the majority opinion was that the default > setting of these Makevars would be 'stale'. In addition, a few people were > concerned that we might be making an implied guarantee about the state > of the licenses. FWIW, RPM spec files have a "License" tag that is used for exactly this purpose. In fact, its even a mandatory tag according to the Linux Standards Base specification (see, for example, http://refspecs.freestandards.org/LSB_2.0.0/LSB-Core/LSB-Core/swinstall.html, particularly Table 1-8). My point is not that we should conform to LSB, but rather that there is at least one example of a very large set of third party software going the other way. Since writers of RPM spec files face the same issues (keeping the tag in sync with the source and whether the tag is a guarantee of licensing or not) I simply wonder how they tackled them (if they did :). Anyone know if this issue has come up in Gentoo? It obviously has in Debian since they categorise all their software into "free" and "non-free". -- Greg Lewis Email : glewis@eyesbeyond.com Eyes Beyond Web : http://www.eyesbeyond.com Information Technology FreeBSD : glewis@FreeBSD.org