Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 20:56:38 -0500 From: Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Cc: "Jack L. Stone" <jacks@sage-american.com> Subject: Re: Drop of portindex Message-ID: <200409152056.38900.linimon@lonesome.com> In-Reply-To: <20040916004320.GB68701@thought.org> References: <20040915093120.3067472e@dolphin.local.net> <20040915175615.11c92103@zork> <20040916004320.GB68701@thought.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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. My personal opinion is that we shouldn't try to create a mechanism to enforce policy based on a small number of unusual cases. (ISTR someone else asking for something in src/ to be removed some time ago, but such things are relatively rare). But there's no argument that port committers should be checking licenses for new ports to make sure that we can redistribute them. Also, any software author really ought to consider making her or his license unambiguous from the first hack attempt. (Yes, I follow my own advice here -- each file in portsmon was tagged BSDL from the beginning.) mcl
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200409152056.38900.linimon>