> Except "the list" is in every port, so we currently have 183 ports that > indicate they use some kind of GPL or LGPL, and we only just started > indicating ports' licenses so there are probably a thousand or more > additional ports that are GPL-licensed that just don't say so. So this would > impose a burden to need to keep on top of updating license information in > ports, and to keep aware of when new license versions come about. Many > maintainers aren't that active or dedicated, and 40% of our ports don't have > a maintainer at all. Only 5% of our ports indicate their license. Granted new > license versions don't come out that frequently so the burden perhaps isn't > so big. > > But consider also the case of software licensed under "GPL 3 or any later > version". There isn't a later version today. If we go by your plan, we'd have > to write GPL-3.0 in the license field. If tomorrow a GPL-3.1 or GPL-4.0 comes > out, we'd have to review all ports that claim to use GPL-3.0 to see if that > meant GPL 3.0 only or GPL 3.0 and any later version.
That's pretty straightforward for SourceForge projects: we can write a licensecheck just like livecheck.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-dev
