Re: LICENSE documentation
On 14.09.2016 23:05, Dave Horsfall wrote: On Wed, 14 Sep 2016, Kurt Jaeger wrote: This interpretation is based on the hypothesis that the user is located in a country that has this kind of legal rule. This is not the case in every country, so your conclusion is not always valid. What percentage of countries are signatories to the Berne Convention? Last I looked, only nice friendly places such as China and North Korea were holding out (and USA was one of the last to sign, and even then with conditions). That is not the only factor. You're quote misses Kurts statement "If no license statement can be found in the sources or the website, then no permission is given, and it's technically illegal for anyone but the author(s) to use the software." This for example is true for Germany, which signed the Berne Convention. But the German law for example makes it impossible to say "i have no right on the source i wrote by myself". You always have the right and it is impossible to resign it. So its even possible that you define a LICENSE like "public domain", but it would be wrong, since a german author is not possible to do this by german laws. Define no license means all rights are yours, but not if you wrote the code for your employer. In this case you have all rights of the source, but give a full usage/distribution/some-more-rights to it. So in conclusion: licenses are a complex thing. Greetings, Torsten ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: LICENSE documentation
On Wed, 14 Sep 2016, Kurt Jaeger wrote: > This interpretation is based on the hypothesis that the user is located > in a country that has this kind of legal rule. > > This is not the case in every country, so your conclusion is not always > valid. What percentage of countries are signatories to the Berne Convention? Last I looked, only nice friendly places such as China and North Korea were holding out (and USA was one of the last to sign, and even then with conditions). -- Dave Horsfall DTM (VK2KFU) "Those who don't understand security will suffer." ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: LICENSE documentation
Hi! > On 2016-09-14 11:49, Kurt Jaeger wrote: > >> [...] > >> the license. If no license statement can be found in the sources or the > >> website, then no permission is given, and it's technically illegal for > >> anyone but the author(s) to use the software. > > This is not the case in every country, so your conclusion is not > > always valid. > That's true. Still, the inclusion of the program in ports collection > depends on author(s) giving their permission, otherwise users in > majority of countries FreeBSD is used in will be disqualified from using > it -- and FreeBSD would probably be liable for copyright infringement too. Let's take a step back: That is why we do introduce the LICENSE framework, but it was not a big problem the last 15+ years, so it's not that the skies will fall tomorrow, if we have a few missing for the foreseeable future. -- p...@opsec.eu+49 171 3101372 4 years to go ! ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: LICENSE documentation
On 2016-09-14 11:49, Kurt Jaeger wrote: >> My interpretation of this phrase is not that LICENSE variable is >> mandatory (to which I would object on the basis that ports licensing >> framework is vague, incomplete, and apparently used by noone too), but >> rather that for the program to be freely distributable at all, it's >> author(s) need to explicitly give their permission. That permission is >> the license. If no license statement can be found in the sources or the >> website, then no permission is given, and it's technically illegal for >> anyone but the author(s) to use the software. > > This interpretation is based on the hypothesis > that the user is located in a country that has this kind of legal rule. > > This is not the case in every country, so your conclusion is not > always valid. That's true. Still, the inclusion of the program in ports collection depends on author(s) giving their permission, otherwise users in majority of countries FreeBSD is used in will be disqualified from using it -- and FreeBSD would probably be liable for copyright infringement too. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: LICENSE documentation
Hi! > On 2016-09-14 10:19, Bob Eager wrote: > > This port never did have LICENSE, and it had been updated recently with > > no issues. However, I was told that "I don't see any mention of any > > kind of license in the package or on the site, so it should be > > LICENSE= NONE. Note that without clear licensing terms it's impossible > > to legally use and redistribute the code." > > My interpretation of this phrase is not that LICENSE variable is > mandatory (to which I would object on the basis that ports licensing > framework is vague, incomplete, and apparently used by noone too), but > rather that for the program to be freely distributable at all, it's > author(s) need to explicitly give their permission. That permission is > the license. If no license statement can be found in the sources or the > website, then no permission is given, and it's technically illegal for > anyone but the author(s) to use the software. This interpretation is based on the hypothesis that the user is located in a country that has this kind of legal rule. This is not the case in every country, so your conclusion is not always valid. -- p...@opsec.eu+49 171 3101372 4 years to go ! ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: LICENSE documentation
On 2016-09-14 10:19, Bob Eager wrote: > This port never did have LICENSE, and it had been updated recently with > no issues. However, I was told that "I don't see any mention of any > kind of license in the package or on the site, so it should be > LICENSE= NONE. Note that without clear licensing terms it's impossible > to legally use and redistribute the code." My interpretation of this phrase is not that LICENSE variable is mandatory (to which I would object on the basis that ports licensing framework is vague, incomplete, and apparently used by noone too), but rather that for the program to be freely distributable at all, it's author(s) need to explicitly give their permission. That permission is the license. If no license statement can be found in the sources or the website, then no permission is given, and it's technically illegal for anyone but the author(s) to use the software. If this is the case, I suggest you to contact the authors, explain the situation, and ask them to include some sort of a license statement -- we'll be forced to remove the program from ports collection otherwise. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: LICENSE documentation
Hi! > I recently had a minor patch (to one of the ports I maintain) bounced > because I hadn't specified a LICENSE. > > This port never did have LICENSE, and it had been updated recently with > no issues. However, I was told that "I don't see any mention of any > kind of license in the package or on the site, so it should be > LICENSE= NONE. Note that without clear licensing terms it's impossible > to legally use and redistribute the code." > > (I did erroneously interpret that, initially, to be saying that there > MUST be a real license specified, although I realise from the above > that NONE is acceptable (and presumably meets the criteria for "clear > licensing terms")). Even the "NONE" is in discussion, if it should be UNDEFINED or UNKNOWN or... > Let me make it absolutely clear that I am not criticising or > questioning the committers; they are just doing their job. > > However, I wonder if two things ought to be done: > > 1) There should be something in the Porter's Handbook about LICENSE. > There is little or none, merely material about licensing in a more > general sense. I would produce an update myself, but given the above, I > am probably not the best person! There are two text drafts in discussion, some of them for a long time: https://reviews.freebsd.org/D56 https://reviews.freebsd.org/D7849 > 2) portlint currently says: "WARN: Makefile: Consider defining LICENSE. > 0 fatal errors and 1 warning found." This is not really correct if > LICENSE is mandatory. Yes, that's unfortunate 8-} -- p...@opsec.eu+49 171 3101372 4 years to go ! ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
LICENSE documentation
I recently had a minor patch (to one of the ports I maintain) bounced because I hadn't specified a LICENSE. This port never did have LICENSE, and it had been updated recently with no issues. However, I was told that "I don't see any mention of any kind of license in the package or on the site, so it should be LICENSE= NONE. Note that without clear licensing terms it's impossible to legally use and redistribute the code." (I did erroneously interpret that, initially, to be saying that there MUST be a real license specified, although I realise from the above that NONE is acceptable (and presumably meets the criteria for "clear licensing terms")). Let me make it absolutely clear that I am not criticising or questioning the committers; they are just doing their job. However, I wonder if two things ought to be done: 1) There should be something in the Porter's Handbook about LICENSE. There is little or none, merely material about licensing in a more general sense. I would produce an update myself, but given the above, I am probably not the best person! 2) portlint currently says: "WARN: Makefile: Consider defining LICENSE. 0 fatal errors and 1 warning found." This is not really correct if LICENSE is mandatory. Thanks! ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
