Re: LICENSE questions

[Bob Eager]

On Tue, 4 Oct 2016 14:15:28 +0200
Mathieu Arnold  wrote:

> Le 04/10/2016 à 14:03, Montgomery-Smith, Stephen a écrit :
> > On 10/04/2016 06:47 AM, Mathieu Arnold wrote:  
> >> Le 04/10/2016 à 09:29, Eitan Adler a écrit :  
> >>> On 4 October 2016 at 00:25, Mathieu Arnold 
> >>> wrote:  
>  Le 04/10/2016 à 03:58, Montgomery-Smith, Stephen a écrit :  
> > Could we use USES=metaport to suppress these messages?  
>  Suppress what messages ?  
> >>> 115 .if defined(LICENSE)
> >>> 119 .else
> >>> 120 DEV_WARNING+=   "Please set LICENSE for this port"
> >>> 121 .endif  
> >> Mmmm, this is a warning, not an error, it tells you "dude, maybe
> >> you need to do this".
> >> I don't see a good reason to complicate the logic more.
> >>  
> > Because naive port maintainers like myself might think they should
> > add a LICENSE to any metaport they happen to own.
> >
> > One of the issues I have with LICENSE is that I don't see anything
> > about it in the porters handbook.  Otherwise that would be an
> > excellent place to tell maintainers of metaports not to license
> > them.  
> 
> Nobody stepped up to write a LICENSE section. I started writing
> https://reviews.freebsd.org/D56 but it is crappy.
> 
> > Also the tone is quite commanding.  If it said "Consider setting
> > LICENSE for this port", that would be more acceptable.  Really, I
> > think it should say "Please set LICENSE for this port, unless this
> > is a metaport".  
> 
> Feel free to make the message better, it is in Mk/bsd.sanity.mk.

I believe portlint uses 'Consider'. On the other hand, I had a new port
and the committer insisted I had LICENSE in there.
___
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 questions

[Mathieu Arnold]

Le 04/10/2016 à 14:03, Montgomery-Smith, Stephen a écrit :
> On 10/04/2016 06:47 AM, Mathieu Arnold wrote:
>> Le 04/10/2016 à 09:29, Eitan Adler a écrit :
>>> On 4 October 2016 at 00:25, Mathieu Arnold  wrote:
 Le 04/10/2016 à 03:58, Montgomery-Smith, Stephen a écrit :
> Could we use USES=metaport to suppress these messages?
 Suppress what messages ?
>>> 115 .if defined(LICENSE)
>>> 119 .else
>>> 120 DEV_WARNING+=   "Please set LICENSE for this port"
>>> 121 .endif
>> Mmmm, this is a warning, not an error, it tells you "dude, maybe you
>> need to do this".
>> I don't see a good reason to complicate the logic more.
>>
> Because naive port maintainers like myself might think they should add a
> LICENSE to any metaport they happen to own.
>
> One of the issues I have with LICENSE is that I don't see anything about
> it in the porters handbook.  Otherwise that would be an excellent place
> to tell maintainers of metaports not to license them.

Nobody stepped up to write a LICENSE section. I started writing
https://reviews.freebsd.org/D56 but it is crappy.

> Also the tone is quite commanding.  If it said "Consider setting LICENSE
> for this port", that would be more acceptable.  Really, I think it
> should say "Please set LICENSE for this port, unless this is a metaport".

Feel free to make the message better, it is in Mk/bsd.sanity.mk.

-- 
Mathieu Arnold




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: LICENSE questions

[Montgomery-Smith, Stephen]

On 10/04/2016 06:47 AM, Mathieu Arnold wrote:
> Le 04/10/2016 à 09:29, Eitan Adler a écrit :
>> On 4 October 2016 at 00:25, Mathieu Arnold  wrote:
>>> Le 04/10/2016 à 03:58, Montgomery-Smith, Stephen a écrit :
 Could we use USES=metaport to suppress these messages?
>>> Suppress what messages ?
>> 115 .if defined(LICENSE)
>> 119 .else
>> 120 DEV_WARNING+=   "Please set LICENSE for this port"
>> 121 .endif
> 
> Mmmm, this is a warning, not an error, it tells you "dude, maybe you
> need to do this".
> I don't see a good reason to complicate the logic more.
> 

Because naive port maintainers like myself might think they should add a
LICENSE to any metaport they happen to own.

One of the issues I have with LICENSE is that I don't see anything about
it in the porters handbook.  Otherwise that would be an excellent place
to tell maintainers of metaports not to license them.

Also the tone is quite commanding.  If it said "Consider setting LICENSE
for this port", that would be more acceptable.  Really, I think it
should say "Please set LICENSE for this port, unless this is a metaport".

Stephen



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: LICENSE questions

[Mathieu Arnold]

Le 04/10/2016 à 09:29, Eitan Adler a écrit :
> On 4 October 2016 at 00:25, Mathieu Arnold  wrote:
>> Le 04/10/2016 à 03:58, Montgomery-Smith, Stephen a écrit :
>>> On 10/03/2016 07:34 AM, Eitan Adler wrote:
 On 3 October 2016 at 05:31, Montgomery-Smith, Stephen
  wrote:
> On 10/02/2016 05:27 PM, Eitan Adler wrote:
>> On 2 October 2016 at 14:44, Montgomery-Smith, Stephen
>>  wrote:
>>> So I have a couple of ports, science/cdf and graphics/opendx, which have
>>> licenses I can't find in Mk/bsd.licenses.db.mk.  How do I set LICENSE in
>>> those ports?
>> The other answers are correct. If the license is standard (listed
>> here: https://spdx.org/licenses/) we should add it to the main
>> database.
>>
>>> An even tougher one is math/octave-forge-optim, where each individual
>>> file has its own license.
>> A "custom" license that merely states to check the distfiles should be
>> sufficient.
> How about a meta port, whose dependencies all have different licenses?
> Something similar?
 meta-ports shouldn't define a license at all. I'm not sure we have a
 way to shut the warnings up though.
>>> Could we use USES=metaport to suppress these messages?
>> Suppress what messages ?
> 115 .if defined(LICENSE)
> 119 .else
> 120 DEV_WARNING+=   "Please set LICENSE for this port"
> 121 .endif

Mmmm, this is a warning, not an error, it tells you "dude, maybe you
need to do this".
I don't see a good reason to complicate the logic more.

-- 
Mathieu Arnold




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: LICENSE questions

[Eitan Adler]

On 4 October 2016 at 00:25, Mathieu Arnold  wrote:
> Le 04/10/2016 à 03:58, Montgomery-Smith, Stephen a écrit :
>> On 10/03/2016 07:34 AM, Eitan Adler wrote:
>>> On 3 October 2016 at 05:31, Montgomery-Smith, Stephen
>>>  wrote:
 On 10/02/2016 05:27 PM, Eitan Adler wrote:
> On 2 October 2016 at 14:44, Montgomery-Smith, Stephen
>  wrote:
>> So I have a couple of ports, science/cdf and graphics/opendx, which have
>> licenses I can't find in Mk/bsd.licenses.db.mk.  How do I set LICENSE in
>> those ports?
> The other answers are correct. If the license is standard (listed
> here: https://spdx.org/licenses/) we should add it to the main
> database.
>
>> An even tougher one is math/octave-forge-optim, where each individual
>> file has its own license.
> A "custom" license that merely states to check the distfiles should be
> sufficient.
 How about a meta port, whose dependencies all have different licenses?
 Something similar?
>>> meta-ports shouldn't define a license at all. I'm not sure we have a
>>> way to shut the warnings up though.
>> Could we use USES=metaport to suppress these messages?
>
> Suppress what messages ?

115 .if defined(LICENSE)
119 .else
120 DEV_WARNING+=   "Please set LICENSE for this port"
121 .endif


-- 
Eitan Adler
___
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 questions

[Mathieu Arnold]

Le 04/10/2016 à 03:58, Montgomery-Smith, Stephen a écrit :
> On 10/03/2016 07:34 AM, Eitan Adler wrote:
>> On 3 October 2016 at 05:31, Montgomery-Smith, Stephen
>>  wrote:
>>> On 10/02/2016 05:27 PM, Eitan Adler wrote:
 On 2 October 2016 at 14:44, Montgomery-Smith, Stephen
  wrote:
> So I have a couple of ports, science/cdf and graphics/opendx, which have
> licenses I can't find in Mk/bsd.licenses.db.mk.  How do I set LICENSE in
> those ports?
 The other answers are correct. If the license is standard (listed
 here: https://spdx.org/licenses/) we should add it to the main
 database.

> An even tougher one is math/octave-forge-optim, where each individual
> file has its own license.
 A "custom" license that merely states to check the distfiles should be
 sufficient.
>>> How about a meta port, whose dependencies all have different licenses?
>>> Something similar?
>> meta-ports shouldn't define a license at all. I'm not sure we have a
>> way to shut the warnings up though.
> Could we use USES=metaport to suppress these messages?

Suppress what messages ?

-- 
Mathieu Arnold




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: LICENSE questions

[Montgomery-Smith, Stephen]

On 10/03/2016 07:34 AM, Eitan Adler wrote:
> On 3 October 2016 at 05:31, Montgomery-Smith, Stephen
>  wrote:
>> On 10/02/2016 05:27 PM, Eitan Adler wrote:
>>> On 2 October 2016 at 14:44, Montgomery-Smith, Stephen
>>>  wrote:
 So I have a couple of ports, science/cdf and graphics/opendx, which have
 licenses I can't find in Mk/bsd.licenses.db.mk.  How do I set LICENSE in
 those ports?
>>>
>>> The other answers are correct. If the license is standard (listed
>>> here: https://spdx.org/licenses/) we should add it to the main
>>> database.
>>>
 An even tougher one is math/octave-forge-optim, where each individual
 file has its own license.
>>>
>>> A "custom" license that merely states to check the distfiles should be
>>> sufficient.
>>
>> How about a meta port, whose dependencies all have different licenses?
>> Something similar?
> 
> meta-ports shouldn't define a license at all. I'm not sure we have a
> way to shut the warnings up though.

Could we use USES=metaport to suppress these messages?
___
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 questions

[Mathieu Arnold]

Le 03/10/2016 à 14:31, Montgomery-Smith, Stephen a écrit :
> On 10/02/2016 05:27 PM, Eitan Adler wrote:
>> On 2 October 2016 at 14:44, Montgomery-Smith, Stephen
>>  wrote:
>>> So I have a couple of ports, science/cdf and graphics/opendx, which have
>>> licenses I can't find in Mk/bsd.licenses.db.mk.  How do I set LICENSE in
>>> those ports?
>> The other answers are correct. If the license is standard (listed
>> here: https://spdx.org/licenses/) we should add it to the main
>> database.
>>
>>> An even tougher one is math/octave-forge-optim, where each individual
>>> file has its own license.
>> A "custom" license that merely states to check the distfiles should be
>> sufficient.
> How about a meta port, whose dependencies all have different licenses?
> Something similar?
>

Meta ports don't install files, they are empty shells, so they do not
really have a license.

-- 
Mathieu Arnold




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: LICENSE questions

[Eitan Adler]

On 3 October 2016 at 05:31, Montgomery-Smith, Stephen
 wrote:
> On 10/02/2016 05:27 PM, Eitan Adler wrote:
>> On 2 October 2016 at 14:44, Montgomery-Smith, Stephen
>>  wrote:
>>> So I have a couple of ports, science/cdf and graphics/opendx, which have
>>> licenses I can't find in Mk/bsd.licenses.db.mk.  How do I set LICENSE in
>>> those ports?
>>
>> The other answers are correct. If the license is standard (listed
>> here: https://spdx.org/licenses/) we should add it to the main
>> database.
>>
>>> An even tougher one is math/octave-forge-optim, where each individual
>>> file has its own license.
>>
>> A "custom" license that merely states to check the distfiles should be
>> sufficient.
>
> How about a meta port, whose dependencies all have different licenses?
> Something similar?

meta-ports shouldn't define a license at all. I'm not sure we have a
way to shut the warnings up though.



-- 
Eitan Adler
___
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 questions

[Montgomery-Smith, Stephen]

On 10/02/2016 05:27 PM, Eitan Adler wrote:
> On 2 October 2016 at 14:44, Montgomery-Smith, Stephen
>  wrote:
>> So I have a couple of ports, science/cdf and graphics/opendx, which have
>> licenses I can't find in Mk/bsd.licenses.db.mk.  How do I set LICENSE in
>> those ports?
> 
> The other answers are correct. If the license is standard (listed
> here: https://spdx.org/licenses/) we should add it to the main
> database.
> 
>> An even tougher one is math/octave-forge-optim, where each individual
>> file has its own license.
> 
> A "custom" license that merely states to check the distfiles should be
> sufficient.

How about a meta port, whose dependencies all have different licenses?
Something similar?
___
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 questions

[Eitan Adler]

On 2 October 2016 at 14:44, Montgomery-Smith, Stephen
 wrote:
> So I have a couple of ports, science/cdf and graphics/opendx, which have
> licenses I can't find in Mk/bsd.licenses.db.mk.  How do I set LICENSE in
> those ports?

The other answers are correct. If the license is standard (listed
here: https://spdx.org/licenses/) we should add it to the main
database.

> An even tougher one is math/octave-forge-optim, where each individual
> file has its own license.

A "custom" license that merely states to check the distfiles should be
sufficient.




-- 
Eitan Adler
___
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 questions

[Bob Eager]

On Sun, 2 Oct 2016 18:44:43 +
"Montgomery-Smith, Stephen"  wrote:

> So I have a couple of ports, science/cdf and graphics/opendx, which
> have licenses I can't find in Mk/bsd.licenses.db.mk.  How do I set
> LICENSE in those ports?

Like this example:

LICENSE=CPLV1
LICENSE_NAME=   CPL V1.0 license
LICENSE_FILE=   ${WRKSRC}/CPLv1.0.txt
LICENSE_PERMS=  dist-mirror dist-sell pkg-mirror pkg-sell auto-accept

Change LICENSE_PERMS as appropriate.
___
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 questions

[Mehmet Erol Sanliturk]

On Sun, Oct 2, 2016 at 11:44 AM, Montgomery-Smith, Stephen <
step...@missouri.edu> wrote:

> So I have a couple of ports, science/cdf and graphics/opendx, which have
> licenses I can't find in Mk/bsd.licenses.db.mk.  How do I set LICENSE in
> those ports?
>
> An even tougher one is math/octave-forge-optim, where each individual
> file has its own license.
> ___
>
>

In my local directories , I am appending license name to directory names ,
for example ,


.../A_BSD
.../B_MIT
.../C_BSD_or_LGPL
.../D_BSD_see_Parts   <-- This means it contains many different
licensed files although primary license is BSD . Such directories require
special care if ever any part is used from them .


I think , it is possible to adopt such definition conventions for the ports
.



Thank you very much .



Mehmet Erol Sanliturk
___
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 questions

[Montgomery-Smith, Stephen]

So I have a couple of ports, science/cdf and graphics/opendx, which have
licenses I can't find in Mk/bsd.licenses.db.mk.  How do I set LICENSE in
those ports?

An even tougher one is math/octave-forge-optim, where each individual
file has its own license.
___
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 questions

[Henrik Brix Andersen]

Hi,

On Jun 15, 2010, at 01:10, Doug Barton wrote:
 My vote would be that we add a PERL category, but maybe there is a reason 
 not to do this?

I would like to second this vote. Unless somebody is already working on this(?) 
I will try and come up with a patch.

Regards,
Brix
-- 
Henrik Brix Andersen b...@freebsd.org



___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org

LICENSE questions

[Doug Barton]

I'm working on adding LICENSE information to my ports, and have a few 
questions. A lot of my ports are ISC products, and they have the 
following: http://people.freebsd.org/~dougb/COPYRIGHT.txt


I also have dns/fpdns which has this: 
http://people.freebsd.org/~dougb/LICENSE.txt which looks like it could 
be BSD, but I'm not sure. I also have several others in this category.


net-mgmt/p5-Net-IP has http://people.freebsd.org/~dougb/COPYING.txt 
which could fall into the perl category, except there isn't one. :)


Then there is security/libassuan which seems to be dual licensed under 
GPLv3 and LGPLv2, did we ever decide how to handle that?


textproc/htdig is so old that it is using LGPL 2, but there is only an 
LGPL21 in bsd.licenses.db.mk


x11/xscreensaver doesn't have an explicit copyright/license file, but it 
has this in the individual files:

 * xscreensaver, Copyright (c) 1991-2010 Jamie Zawinski j...@jwz.org
 *
 * Permission to use, copy, modify, distribute, and sell this software 
and its
 * documentation for any purpose is hereby granted without fee, 
provided that

 * the above copyright notice appear in all copies and that both that
 * copyright notice and this permission notice appear in supporting
 * documentation.  No representations are made about the suitability of 
this

 * software for any purpose.  It is provided as is without express or
 * implied warranty.
 */
Seems like BSD to me?


Thanks,

Doug

--

... and that's just a little bit of history repeating.
-- Propellerheads

Improve the effectiveness of your Internet presence with
a domain name makeover!http://SupersetSolutions.com/

___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org

Re: LICENSE questions

[Doug Barton]

On 06/14/10 08:05, Ashish SHUKLA wrote:

Doug Barton writes:

[...]


Then there is security/libassuan which seems to be dual licensed under
GPLv3 and LGPLv2, did we ever decide how to handle that?


In one of the dual-licensed port's Makefile, I added:
#v+
LICENSE=  GPLv3 LGPL3
LICENSE_FILE_GPLv3= ${WRKSRC}/COPYING
LICENSE_FILE_LGPL3= ${WRKSRC}/COPYING.LESSER


Great, thanks!


Doug

--

... and that's just a little bit of history repeating.
-- Propellerheads

Improve the effectiveness of your Internet presence with
a domain name makeover!http://SupersetSolutions.com/

___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org

Re: LICENSE questions

[Doug Barton]

On 06/14/10 09:59, Chuck Swiger wrote:

Hi--

On Jun 14, 2010, at 1:07 AM, Doug Barton wrote:

I'm working on adding LICENSE information to my ports, and have a
few questions. A lot of my ports are ISC products, and they have
the following: http://people.freebsd.org/~dougb/COPYRIGHT.txt


Yes, that's the ISC license,
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/isc-license.txt.


Right-O, so can we/I add that to ports/Mk/bsd.license*?


I also have dns/fpdns which has this:
http://people.freebsd.org/~dougb/LICENSE.txt which looks like it
could be BSD, but I'm not sure. I also have several others in this
category.


That's a 3-clause BSD license variant.


Yeah, I guess I didn't ask my question properly. :)  Can I use just 
BSD for the license in these cases, or is there a need for us to 
differentiate between this BSD license and the now-standard 2-clause 
version?



net-mgmt/p5-Net-IP has http://people.freebsd.org/~dougb/COPYING.txt
which could fall into the perl category, except there isn't one.
:)


Many Perl things are licensed under the same terms as Perl itself;
ie, dual-licensed under the GPL  Artistic license.  (The latter
license is not well-written, and should be deprecated-- the GPL does
a better job.)


My vote would be that we add a PERL category, but maybe there is a 
reason not to do this?



x11/xscreensaver doesn't have an explicit copyright/license file,
but it has this in the individual files: * xscreensaver, Copyright
(c) 1991-2010 Jamie Zawinskij...@jwz.org * * Permission to use,
copy, modify, distribute, and sell this software and its *
documentation for any purpose is hereby granted without fee,
provided that * the above copyright notice appear in all copies and
that both that * copyright notice and this permission notice appear
in supporting * documentation.  No representations are made about
the suitability of this * software for any purpose.  It is provided
as is without express or * implied warranty. */ Seems like BSD to
me?


That's a MIT/X11 license minus the all-caps DISCLAIMER.


Oy, ok, so how do I classify it? Or am I correct in assuming we do not 
yet have a category for it?


In any case, thanks for all the answers, very helpful!


Doug

--

... and that's just a little bit of history repeating.
-- Propellerheads

Improve the effectiveness of your Internet presence with
a domain name makeover!http://SupersetSolutions.com/

___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org

Re: LICENSE questions

[Chuck Swiger]

Hi--

On Jun 14, 2010, at 4:10 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
 On 06/14/10 09:59, Chuck Swiger wrote:
 On Jun 14, 2010, at 1:07 AM, Doug Barton wrote:
 I'm working on adding LICENSE information to my ports, and have a
 few questions. A lot of my ports are ISC products, and they have
 the following: http://people.freebsd.org/~dougb/COPYRIGHT.txt
 
 Yes, that's the ISC license,
 http://www.opensource.org/licenses/isc-license.txt.
 
 Right-O, so can we/I add that to ports/Mk/bsd.license*?

+1 to that.  (ISC isn't extremely common, but it's not rare, and a bunch of 
commonly used ports do use it.)

 I also have dns/fpdns which has this:
 http://people.freebsd.org/~dougb/LICENSE.txt which looks like it
 could be BSD, but I'm not sure. I also have several others in this
 category.
 
 That's a 3-clause BSD license variant.
 
 Yeah, I guess I didn't ask my question properly. :)  Can I use just BSD for 
 the license in these cases, or is there a need for us to differentiate 
 between this BSD license and the now-standard 2-clause version?

The main distinction which matters for BSD licenses is whether the 
acknowledgement clause (aka clause 3 of the 4-clause license from FreeBSD's 
/COPYRIGHT) is present, since that makes it not miscible with GPLv2.

In your particular case, you don't have the acknowledgement clause.

 net-mgmt/p5-Net-IP has http://people.freebsd.org/~dougb/COPYING.txt
 which could fall into the perl category, except there isn't one.
 :)
 
 Many Perl things are licensed under the same terms as Perl itself;
 ie, dual-licensed under the GPL  Artistic license.  (The latter
 license is not well-written, and should be deprecated-- the GPL does
 a better job.)
 
 My vote would be that we add a PERL category, but maybe there is a reason 
 not to do this?

Considering that there are ~4000 p5 ports, it seems reasonable to indicate that 
they are licensed under the same terms as Perl itself.  Similar arguments might 
be made for Python or Ruby, but I'm not sure they're as common.

 [ ...quoted-printable mangling deleted... ]
 That's a MIT/X11 license minus the all-caps DISCLAIMER.
 
 Oy, ok, so how do I classify it? Or am I correct in assuming we do not yet 
 have a category for it?

I see MIT listed, although I would describe it more precisely as the MIT/X11 
variant rather than a pure MIT license.

Regards,
-- 
-Chuck

___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org

Re: LICENSE questions

[Charlie Kester]

This LICENSE stuff is beginning to look more complex than it seemed at
first.  


From this thread I gather that maintainers are going to have to do a bit
more than simply check a box.  Here, for example, we see some well-known
licenses that don't readily identify themselves as such.  How can a
maintainer be sure that he's looking at the ISC license as opposed to
some custom license that only resembles it in some details?

Is anyone working on adding some instructions to the Porter's Handbook?

___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org