Josh, please consider the related mails irrelevant, I found the following phrase "[…] distributed under the Python software license." Thanks again! ~petr
On Dec 10, 2013, at 13:36 , Joshua Root <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2013-12-10 22:39 , Peter Danecek wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> I am authoring a python port where the license is not specified and I am >> wondering how to deal with this. >> >> I saw mentioning of `License: unknown` in some examples so I would guess >> this is the correct keyword to put. >> >> Is it the default as well? >> Should it be than left out (because it is the default)? > > "license unknown" means nobody has set the license for that port yet. > The license option didn't exist for a long time, so older ports are > often in this situation. New ports should have a license specified. > >> I guess, it makes sense to provide this info explicitly, because it was >> looked up and no explicit statement from the author(s) on the licence could >> be found, which is different from the situation where the port author omits >> this info. > > No license at all is bad because it means that regular copyright > applies, meaning nobody but the copyright holder is allowed to make > copies. Among other things this means we're not even allowed to mirror > the source, which happens automatically unless the port is added to a > list of exclusions. (End users downloading it directly from a place the > author has made it available is OK, as making it publicly available > implies giving the public permission to download.) > > The best course is to contact the author and get a license statement > from them. If this is impossible and you really need to add the port > anyway, put "license none" and contact Shree or Bill to get it added to > the mirror exclusions before you commit. > > - Josh
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
