From owner-cvs-ports@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Nov 10 21:41:11 2004
Return-Path: <owner-cvs-ports@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: cvs-ports@freebsd.org
Received: by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 758)
	id DB1FF16A4D1; Wed, 10 Nov 2004 21:41:11 +0000 (GMT)
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 21:41:11 +0000
From: Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.org>
To: Michael Johnson <ahze@ahze.net>
Message-ID: <20041110214111.GB72650@hub.freebsd.org>
References: <200411100905.iAA95TNk003515@repoman.freebsd.org>
	<20041110184623.GC56766@hub.freebsd.org>
	<01C56FB0-3361-11D9-9029-000A958C81C6@ahze.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <01C56FB0-3361-11D9-9029-000A958C81C6@ahze.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
cc: cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org
cc: Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.org>
cc: Michael Johnson <ahze@FreeBSD.org>
cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org
cc: ports-committers@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports LEGAL
X-BeenThere: cvs-ports@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: CVS commit messages for the ports tree <cvs-ports.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-ports>,
	<mailto:cvs-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/cvs-ports>
List-Post: <mailto:cvs-ports@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cvs-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-ports>,
	<mailto:cvs-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 21:41:12 -0000

On Wed, Nov 10, 2004 at 04:39:31PM -0500, Michael Johnson wrote:

> >The first field is supposed to be a glob that matches all restricted
> >distfiles.
> >
> >You're supposed to mail portmgr when you add things here, because we
> >may need to remove distfiles from ftp-master to conform (see the big
> >scary notice at the top of the file).
> 
> I'm not big on license issues but from what I  understand, faac's 
> source can
> be freely distributed (its on sourceforge) but just can't sell a binary 
> with out a license from
> dolby. I thought since this source doesn't matter it wouldn't matter if 
> we have it on our mirrors.
> Am I wrong?

Thanks for clarifying; looks like Point 2 is OK, but Point 1 is still
true.

Kris