Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2004 21:47:10 +0400 From: Yar Tikhiy <yar@comp.chem.msu.su> To: Alex Dupre <ale@FreeBSD.org> Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: NO_CDROM and NO_PACKAGE set together? Message-ID: <20040604174710.GD30578@comp.chem.msu.su> In-Reply-To: <40C09B9A.4020501@FreeBSD.org> References: <20040604142439.GA25434@comp.chem.msu.su> <40C088C3.3020408@FreeBSD.org> <20040604150641.GA26338@comp.chem.msu.su> <40C09B9A.4020501@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I'm afraid that excessive use of parentheses makes comprehending the text more difficult. Personally, I prefer simpler style when writing documentation. I.e.: 6.2.1 NO_PACKAGE This variable indicates that we may not generate a binary package of the application. For instance, the license may disallow binary redistribution or distribution of packages created from patched sources. However, the port's DISTFILES may be freely mirrored on FTP/HTTP. They may also be distributed on a CD-ROM (or similar media) unless NO_CDROM is set as well. ... 6.2.2 NO_CDROM This variable alone indicates that, although we are allowed to generate binary packages, we may put neither those packages nor the port's DISTFILES onto a CD-ROM (or similar media) for resale. However, the binary packages and the port's DISTFILES will still be available via FTP/HTTP. If this variable is set along with NO_PACKAGE, only the port's DISTFILES will be available, and only via FTP/HTTP. ... 6.2.3 RESTRICTED Set this variable alone if the application's license permits neither mirroring the application's DISTFILES nor distributing the binary package in any way. NO_CDROM or NO_PACKAGE should not be set along with RESTRICTED since the latter variable implies the former ones. ... I think that a bit of reiteration won't hurt when speaking of the license stuff. At the same time, IMHO, your note at the beginning can be removed safely as soon as the main paragraphs change. > >Besides other things, the word "freely" is no longer used since > >media distribution usually involves at least covering production > >and shipping expences. > > "Free" doesn't imply "gratis". Recently I met a port (mail/milter-sender) whose application's license explicitly stated that any exchange of goods, even that to cover expenses, was commerce. I believe that such words as "free" must be used with caution when touching legal issues. -- Yar
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040604174710.GD30578>