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! _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
