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 [1] 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 [2].
> [1] https://spdx.org/licenses/
> [2] 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.


That script is used by the buildbot to determine which binaries we are allowed 
to distribute.

Reply via email to