Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2016 08:19:15 +0100 From: Bob Eager <rde@tavi.co.uk> To: ports@freeBSD.org Subject: LICENSE documentation Message-ID: <20160914081915.72e9cf14@raksha.tavi.co.uk>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I recently had a minor patch (to one of the ports I maintain) bounced because I hadn't specified a LICENSE. This port never did have LICENSE, and it had been updated recently with no issues. However, I was told that "I don't see any mention of any kind of license in the package or on the site, so it should be LICENSE= NONE. Note that without clear licensing terms it's impossible to legally use and redistribute the code." (I did erroneously interpret that, initially, to be saying that there MUST be a real license specified, although I realise from the above that NONE is acceptable (and presumably meets the criteria for "clear licensing terms")). Let me make it absolutely clear that I am not criticising or questioning the committers; they are just doing their job. However, I wonder if two things ought to be done: 1) There should be something in the Porter's Handbook about LICENSE. There is little or none, merely material about licensing in a more general sense. I would produce an update myself, but given the above, I am probably not the best person! 2) portlint currently says: "WARN: Makefile: Consider defining LICENSE. 0 fatal errors and 1 warning found." This is not really correct if LICENSE is mandatory. Thanks!
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20160914081915.72e9cf14>