On 2014/07/17 09:23, Ingo Schwarze wrote: > Hi Brian, > > > # GPLv2+ > > That seems wrong. > It ought to be "GPLv2 only". > See the file COPYHEADER.
Good catch, that is correct. Since this came up recently somewhere else and is relevant here, let's canvas opinions. What attitude should ports take to license markers in the cases: 1. where copyright notices are not included in each file, but there is a common file (such as in this case COPYHEADER) with a proper grant and 2. where a README has a notice along these lines: Some source files contain a license notice; all other source files are licensed under the GNU Public License (GPL), of which you can find a copy in the file 'GPL.txt'. - where GPL.txt is just a copy of the GPL text from FSF, no copyright notice specific to the distribution - no other files have proper grant (i.e. no Copyright <name> <date> "you can redistribute this under xyz terms") - but it's clearly intended to be under GPL ..... I am assuming that 1) can't be too bad as we distributed lynx in base for a long time, so PERMIT_*=Yes is probably ok here (if it isn't, many ports will be affected). For 2) the particular port I'm thinking of has PERMIT_*=No but I'm wondering if this is a bit tight and whether maybe relaxing to permit ftp packages makes sense (Debian are usually pretty hot on these and they're distributing it) Thoughts?
