On Mar 2, 2018, at 01:35, Leonardo Brondani Schenkel wrote: > On 2018-03-01 14:48, Ryan Schmidt wrote: >>> +license BSD-2-Clause >> MacPorts doesn't know that license by that name; we call this license "BSD". >> It's important to use the correct license name so that MacPorts can >> distribute binaries of ports that are distributable. Changing the license >> after a successful build does not currently cause the buildbot to reexamine >> the port to distribute binaries that didn't get distributed before, so it's >> important to get the license correct the first time. The list of licenses we >> currently use is documented here: >> https://trac.macports.org/wiki/PortfileRecipes#licensekeyword > > I think that we should consider using SPDX license identifiers  in the > ports. It was deliberately made to make it easier to track compliance, as it > is the use case here. They're very precise and they're being adopted by quite > a lot of projects nowadays, for example the Linux kernel . > >  https://spdx.org/licenses/ >  https://lwn.net/Articles/739183/ > > If we use the same vocabulary as everybody else has many benefits, I think, > among them is the fact it refrains the project from having to maintain its > own list, removes ambiguity and it is also easier for contributors, so they > can use the same identifiers they're used to. > > In case we want to do that, we could treat our own list as "legacy" > identifiers: ports are encouraged to use SPDX license identifiers, but the > old keywords are also accepted for compatibility.
I'm open to that. But whatever changes are made, the port_binary_distributable.tcl script has to work correctly with those changes. https://github.com/macports/macports-infrastructure/blob/master/jobs/port_binary_distributable.tcl That script is used by the buildbot to determine which binaries we are allowed to distribute.