On Aug 11, 2009, at 01:13, [email protected] wrote:
Revision: 55459
http://trac.macports.org/changeset/55459
Author: [email protected]
Date: 2009-08-10 23:13:17 -0700 (Mon, 10 Aug 2009)
Log Message:
-----------
add basic ideas for licenses -- keep commented out until such
policy is formed
Modified Paths:
--------------
trunk/doc-new/guide/xml/portfiledev.xml
+ <para>Port license</para>
+
+ <para>A port's license indicates the class of license
employed by the
+ owner. Setting this signals the main intentions of the
license with
+ respect to binary and source distribution. It is presently
only for
+ informational purposes and MacPorts does not distribute
binaries.</para>
Since MacPorts doesn't distribute binaries, and won't for a long time
(unless someone suddenly writes a lot of code), I would omit all
reference to it, in this introduction here and in license
descriptions below.
+ <para><varname>GPL</varname> – signifies the
requirements of GNU
+ General Public License; the source be available in
the same place
+ as the binary.</para>
+
+ <para><varname>LGPL</varname> – use this for the GNU
Lesser General
+ Public License, which mandates that the source
and binary are
+ available in the same place.</para>
+
+ <para><varname>BSD</varname> – covering the original
and new BSD
+ license as well as MIT and Apache; these licenses
allow for optional
+ inclusion of source code.</para>
+
+ <para><varname>Artistic</varname> – aptly named to
indicate the
+ Artistic license and derivatives.</para>
+
+ <para><varname>Artistic-GPL</varname> – dual-licensed
under the
+ Artistic and GPL licenses.</para>
+
+ <para><varname>/GFDL</varname> and <varname>/LDP</
varname> – these
+ suffixes indicate that the documentation provided is
under the GNU
+ Free Documentation License or the Linux Documentation
Project</para>
Wouldn't you want to list the actual license? If the project is
licensed under the MIT license, I would have thought the keyword
would read "MIT", not "BSD".
It might also be better to just link to the canonical version of each
license, rather than try to summarize each one.
+ <para><varname>RESTRICT</varname> – when the licenses are
+ restrictive.</para>
+
+ <para><varname>RESTRICT-EYESONLY</varname> – if the
license does not
+ permit distribution.</para>
+
+ <para><varname>PUBLIC</varname> – the code is not
copyrighted:
+ anyone can do anything</para>
I don't think these need to be in all caps. The others only are
because they're acronyms.
For "restrict", restrictive how? For "restrict-eyesonly",
distribution of what?
_______________________________________________
macports-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-dev
