From owner-freebsd-ports  Wed Aug 30 01:50:36 1995
Return-Path: ports-owner
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by freefall.FreeBSD.org (8.6.11/8.6.6) id BAA19265
          for ports-outgoing; Wed, 30 Aug 1995 01:50:36 -0700
Received: from silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU (silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU [136.152.64.181])
          by freefall.FreeBSD.org (8.6.11/8.6.6) with ESMTP id BAA19258
          ; Wed, 30 Aug 1995 01:50:31 -0700
Received: (from asami@localhost) by silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.12/8.6.9) id BAA17766; Wed, 30 Aug 1995 01:50:28 -0700
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 1995 01:50:28 -0700
Message-Id: <199508300850.BAA17766@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU>
To: paul@FreeBSD.org
CC: jkh@time.cdrom.com, paul@FreeBSD.org, ports@FreeBSD.org
In-reply-to: <199508291251.NAA15408@server.netcraft.co.uk> (message from Paul Richards on Tue, 29 Aug 1995 13:51:07 +0100 (BST))
Subject: Re: copyright notices for ports/packages
From: asami@cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami)
Sender: ports-owner@FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

 * I think we should make a specific not in the guidelines about checking
 * the copyright and copying it to a ./Copyright file so when a port is
 * added we can go and check the copyright ourselves without having to
 * install the whole thing. If you go for the installation of the Copyright
 * as well then it's at least in an easy palce to find so the mk file could
 * do the job rather than getting the porter to add it to the install list.

I think this is a VERY good point, more so since we discovered a few
ports recently that we had to remove from the package area because of
copyright problems.  Enforcing the porter to at least think about the
copyright notice is one way to keep ourselves out of trouble.

But I still think Jordan's proposal can save space and achieve almost
the same effect.  We can still require all ports to have the

COPYRIGHT= @GPL

or

COPYRIGHT= ${WRKSRC}/doc/Copyright

lines, and I don't think that people would just look at the name of
the file and NOT look at their contents.

Your other point about wanting them in our cvs tree for easy lookup, I
think that's a valid point but the tradeoff is between that and the
diskspace.  I'm trying very hard to keep the ports small so that we
can say "hey, go get ports.tar.gz!  It's only 6 megs uncompressed!".
I sometimes even bark at large patch files.

As I mentioned already, GPL is 18KB, for instance (granted not all
copyright notices are THAT big).  And with 346 ports, these things are
going to add up quickly....

Satoshi