Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 10:56:03 +0200 From: Volker Stolz <stolz@i2.informatik.rwth-aachen.de> To: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Drop of portindex Message-ID: <20040916085603.GA96264@i2.informatik.rwth-aachen.de> In-Reply-To: <p0611041cbd6e58d22b84@[128.113.24.47]> References: <20040915093120.3067472e@dolphin.local.net> <3.0.5.32.20040915104438.01f2dda0@sage-american.com> <200409151833.55714.michaelnottebrock@gmx.net> <p0611041cbd6e58d22b84@[128.113.24.47]>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In gmane.os.freebsd.devel.ports, you wrote: > Unfortunately, the "we" in that last paragraph includes a lot of > people, including many people who are not the official developers > of "the ports collection". Perhaps this means that the ports > collection will need to police the licenses of anything which > claims to operate on the ports collection, just to avoid this > confusion. I do not know what the best solution would be. Speaking as a ports-committer, I already had one or two instances of new submissions where I evtl. got the submission polished up to commit-quality, but then decided to ditch my effort because I couldn't make heads nor tails of the license (especially more so for non-native speakers). Another example while looking for advice was: "The license was good enough for NetBSD, so it should be sufficient for us". Indeed not a favourable situation. -- http://www-i2.informatik.rwth-aachen.de/stolz/ *** PGP *** S/MIME Two more months.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040916085603.GA96264>