Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2016 10:49:35 +0200 From: Kurt Jaeger <lists@opsec.eu> To: Vitaly Magerya <vmagerya@gmail.com> Cc: Bob Eager <rde@tavi.co.uk>, ports@freeBSD.org Subject: Re: LICENSE documentation Message-ID: <20160914084935.GL85563@home.opsec.eu> In-Reply-To: <9d155596-2137-c385-e557-32431e88c0f8@gmail.com> References: <20160914081915.72e9cf14@raksha.tavi.co.uk> <9d155596-2137-c385-e557-32431e88c0f8@gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi! > On 2016-09-14 10:19, Bob Eager wrote: > > 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." > > My interpretation of this phrase is not that LICENSE variable is > mandatory (to which I would object on the basis that ports licensing > framework is vague, incomplete, and apparently used by noone too), but > rather that for the program to be freely distributable at all, it's > author(s) need to explicitly give their permission. That permission is > the license. If no license statement can be found in the sources or the > website, then no permission is given, and it's technically illegal for > anyone but the author(s) to use the software. This interpretation is based on the hypothesis that the user is located in a country that has this kind of legal rule. This is not the case in every country, so your conclusion is not always valid. -- pi@opsec.eu +49 171 3101372 4 years to go !
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20160914084935.GL85563>