Re: pkg-fallout: License not correctly defined: defining both LICENSE_FILE and LICENSE_TEXT is not allowed

s. Thanks again! :-) --Chris An .include includes the given file at that point (duh), and in this case that's kde-icons-noia/Makefile.icons, which overwrites your LICENSE variables (and brings in LICENSE_TEXT). And, as stated before: that cannot be your intention (and including kde-icons-noia/Make

Re: pkg-fallout: License not correctly defined: defining both LICENSE_FILE and LICENSE_TEXT is not allowed

ote in my first reply: : Foremost, that Makefile has an .include, and that's where the mess : (for this use case) happens. An .include includes the given file at that point (duh), and in this case that's kde-icons-noia/Makefile.icons, which overwrites your LICENSE variables (and brings in LIC

Re: pkg-fallout: License not correctly defined: defining both LICENSE_FILE and LICENSE_TEXT is not allowed

On 2021-05-14 14:19, Christoph Moench-Tegeder wrote: ## Chris (portmas...@bsdforge.com): > but the way it currently interacts > with your port is not that fine: in the very least, it overwrites > your LICENSE variables, which cannot be your intention. (Try > "make -V LICE

Re: pkg-fallout: License not correctly defined: defining both LICENSE_FILE and LICENSE_TEXT is not allowed

## Chris (portmas...@bsdforge.com): > > but the way it currently interacts > > with your port is not that fine: in the very least, it overwrites > > your LICENSE variables, which cannot be your intention. (Try > > "make -V LICENSE" in kde-icons-nuovoext2). >

Re: pkg-fallout: License not correctly defined: defining both LICENSE_FILE and LICENSE_TEXT is not allowed

about that?), but the way it currently interacts with your port is not that fine: in the very least, it overwrites your LICENSE variables, which cannot be your intention. (Try "make -V LICENSE" in kde-icons-nuovoext2). Sorry. My bad. LGPL3 is now included in the current LICENSE Tem

Re: pkg-fallout: License not correctly defined: defining both LICENSE_FILE and LICENSE_TEXT is not allowed

interacts with your port is not that fine: in the very least, it overwrites your LICENSE variables, which cannot be your intention. (Try "make -V LICENSE" in kde-icons-nuovoext2). Regards, Christoph -- Spare Space ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org

pkg-fallout: License not correctly defined: defining both LICENSE_FILE and LICENSE_TEXT is not allowed

I'm getting the following report from pkg-fallout@: License not correctly defined: defining both LICENSE_FILE and LICENSE_TEXT is not allowed for x11-themes/kde-icons-nuovext2 HOWEVER the error returned by pkg-fallout@ makes absolutely no sense at all, given the Makefile for the report

Which license to specify for a binary port?

://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201799, and I note some of my progress there. My broader question for the group is: Racadm's license, accoring to the RPM is "Dell Proprietary" but I cannot find the actual text of this license on their site. How should a porter approach this situat

License question - New port databases/libmswstr

I intend to update my databases/mdbtools port and add a new databases/libmswstr [1] port as a dependency. This new port should allow mdbtools to use indexes of databases in JET4 format. [1] https://reviews.freebsd.org/D27955 The author of libmswstr [2] did not include a license [3] with his

math/hs-Agda: Need help with defining LICENSE

Hello. I'm having troubles setting LICENSE properly for math/hs-Agda port. Its LICENSE file looks like this: https://hackage.haskell.org/package/Agda-2.6.0.1/src/LICENSE I've figured out that I surely need LICENSE_COMB= multi, but I'm unsure of the rest. I'd be grateful, if someone would write

[patch] [maintainer timeout, 51 days] Bug 230917 - [patch] x11-wm/libcompizconfig: correct LICENSE; add a missing dependency and option NLS

Dear commiters, Could you please commit the patch of Bug 230917 ? Best regards, Samy Mahmoudi ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports

[patch] [maintainer timeout, 51 days] Bug 230916 - [patch] x11-wm/ccsm: add LICENSE and option NLS

Dear commiters, Could you please commit the patch of Bug 230916 ? Best regards, Samy Mahmoudi ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports

[patch] [maintainer timeout, 51 days] Bug 230915 - [patch] x11-wm/compiz-fusion: add LICENSE and missing dependencies

Dear commiters, Could you please commit the patch of Bug 230915 ? Best regards, Samy Mahmoudi ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports

[patch] [maintainer timeout, 51 days] Bug 230908 - [patch] x11-wm/compiz-plugins-extra: add missing dependencies, LICENSE and option NLS

Dear commiters, Could you please commit the patch of Bug 230908 ? Best regards, Samy Mahmoudi ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports

Re: What the port license should be when software is "free for non-commercial use" with "click-to-accept" or clickwrap license?

On Fri, 6 Jul 2018 05:46:00 +0700 Eugene Grosbein wrote: > 05.07.2018 18:01, Marko Cupać wrote: > > > What would be the benefit of users' clicks for owners of such > > software? What would owners of such software lose if they didn't > > require clicks? > > > > What would be the benefit for pkg

Re: What the port license should be when software is "free for non-commercial use" with "click-to-accept" or clickwrap license?

05.07.2018 18:01, Marko Cupać wrote: > What would be the benefit of users' clicks for owners of such software? > What would owners of such software lose if they didn't require clicks? > > What would be the benefit for pkg owners for investing time and effort > into supporting such feature? How

Re: What the port license should be when software is "free for non-commercial use" with "click-to-accept" or clickwrap license?

On Mon, 2 Jul 2018 15:52:31 -0700 Yuri wrote: > One software package has the custom license text that users need to > click-to-accept in order to install it. > > Does 'pkg' support such license? Can it show the user the license > text and ask the user to click "Agre

Re: What the port license should be when software is "free for non-commercial use" with "click-to-accept" or clickwrap license?

03.07.2018 14:06, Mathieu Arnold wrote: >>> But it doesn't ask to "agree" during 'pkg install dcc-dccd'. >> >> Yes. Meantime, you have several choices: >> >> 1) Mark the port NO_PACKAGE and/or no-pkg-mirror to force users use a port >> that > > It is not no-pkg-mirror, in this case, it is

Re: What the port license should be when software is "free for non-commercial use" with "click-to-accept" or clickwrap license?

On Tue, Jul 03, 2018 at 06:33:43AM +0700, Eugene Grosbein wrote: > 03.07.2018 6:17, Yuri wrote: > > >> It does. See mail/dcc-dccd for example. > > But it doesn't ask to "agree" during 'pkg install dcc-dccd'. > > Yes. Meantime, you have several choices: > > 1) Mark the port NO_PACKAGE and/or

Re: What the port license should be when software is "free for non-commercial use" with "click-to-accept" or clickwrap license?

03.07.2018 6:17, Yuri wrote: >> It does. See mail/dcc-dccd for example. > But it doesn't ask to "agree" during 'pkg install dcc-dccd'. Yes. Meantime, you have several choices: 1) Mark the port NO_PACKAGE and/or no-pkg-mirror to force users use a port that 1a) builds software from source, or 1b)

Re: What the port license should be when software is "free for non-commercial use" with "click-to-accept" or clickwrap license?

On 07/02/18 16:11, Eugene Grosbein wrote: It does. See mail/dcc-dccd for example. But it doesn't ask to "agree" during 'pkg install dcc-dccd'. Yuri ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list

What the port license should be when software is "free for non-commercial use" with "click-to-accept" or clickwrap license?

One software package has the custom license text that users need to click-to-accept in order to install it. Does 'pkg' support such license? Can it show the user the license text and ask the user to click "Agree" before installing the package? If not, I think this is a good featu

Re: License and adopting software

I think we should consider gradually using the Clear BSD license whenever someone decides to make an alternate, where a GPL licensed code was inserted on top of less restrictive licenses. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https

Re: License and adopting software

> 'someone else said something to the effect of  "If I looked at the code > already, the license is already contaminated"' That makes no sense to me. That advice seems counterproductive. In the source code, I'm sure you saw this, but there are different licenses in the files.

Re: License and adopting software

If the author doesn't respond, it's best to move on. Either use their GPL, or completely rewrite it, to avoid infringing on their work. It should be in it's own separate files, so it doesn't get absorbed into that other work's more restrictive license, before it is its own work. You'll need

Re: License and adopting software

original > >>>> developer is not and have not done any work on the software sine mid > >>>> 2000. > >>>> > >>>> I'd like to pick up the project, fix bugs BUT i'd like to migrate > >>>> from GPL to BSD license. > >>>

Re: License and adopting software

11 December 2017 at 17:17, blubee blubeeme <gurenc...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> I like some old software that's <= GPL2 but it seems like the original >>>> developer is not and have not done any work on the software sine mid >>>> 2000. >>>>

Re: License and adopting software

ware that's <= GPL2 but it seems like the original > > developer is not and have not done any work on the software sine mid > 2000. > > > > I'd like to pick up the project, fix bugs BUT i'd like to migrate from > GPL > > to BSD license. > > > > How does

Re: License and adopting software

that's <= GPL2 but it seems like the >>> original developer is not and have not done any work on the >>> software sine mid 2000. >>> >>> I'd like to pick up the project, fix bugs BUT i'd like to migrate >>> from GPL to BSD license. >>> >>>

Re: License and adopting software

any work on the software sine mid > 2000. > > > > I'd like to pick up the project, fix bugs BUT i'd like to migrate from > GPL > > to BSD license. > > > > How does one go about doing that? I have seen the GPL code but it could > be > > re-written how

Re: License and adopting software

T i'd like to migrate from GPL > to BSD license. > > How does one go about doing that? I have seen the GPL code but it could be > re-written how would that affect me re-writing the code with a new copy > center license? You basically have to get the original author to reassign copy

License and adopting software

I like some old software that's <= GPL2 but it seems like the original developer is not and have not done any work on the software sine mid 2000. I'd like to pick up the project, fix bugs BUT i'd like to migrate from GPL to BSD license. How does one go about doing that? I have seen the GPL c

Re: SPDX and LICENSE in the ports framework

On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 11:49 AM, Kurt Jaeger <li...@opsec.eu> wrote: > Hi! > > Who is working on the LICENSE part of the ports framework ? > > I've found this website: > > https://spdx.org/ > > which describes SPDX as a > > standard format for

Adding license information for non-predefined license.

Hello all. Let's assume there is a port of software with following situation. * It is covered under single license that is not defined in bsd.license.db.mk. * There is no license document file in source archive. * But there is license sentences in each of source code files. In this case

FreeBSD Port: freeze-2.5_2 - license dialog

Would it be possible to move the license dialog to a standard option so batch portmaster (etc) will get the license confirmation with the rest of the options updates rather than during the (often unattended) build phase? -David ___ freebsd-ports

Which license should be used for as-id

Dear all, which LICENSE tag in ports should be used if the package as the license "AS IS"? Thanks Matthias -- "Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the universe trying to produce bigger and better

Using the license framework to define a port with distribution restrictions

Hi, I have a question in relation to the FreeBSD license framework and how to define a port with distribution restrictions. The port in question is devel/vasm port. The legal section of documentation (1.2) for this port is at: http://sun.hasenbraten.de/vasm/release/vasm.html It is not clear

Re: www/subsonic-standalone license

Hey Franco, On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 6:38 PM, Franco Fichtner wrote: > >> On 28 Oct 2016, at 6:30 PM, Joshua Ruehlig wrote: >> >> I don't believe the maintainer dropped the project. > > I was talking about www/subsonic, sorry for the confusion: > >

Re: www/subsonic-standalone license

Ahh ok, sounds good. Sounds like we should just follow suit with whatever www/subsonic does. Which seems to be thus far to remove the LICENSE line. On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 9:38 AM, Franco Fichtner <fra...@lastsummer.de> wrote: > > > On 28 Oct 2016, at 6:30 PM, Joshua Ru

Re: www/subsonic-standalone license

a maintainer) and carries the whole context. In short, the author of Subsonic has to specify what is the license of his product and include appropriate license in both the distributable/downloadable tarball and relevant source repositories. As it is at the moment, it all points to it still being

Re: www/subsonic-standalone license

> On 28 Oct 2016, at 6:30 PM, Joshua Ruehlig wrote: > > I don't believe the maintainer dropped the project. I was talking about www/subsonic, sorry for the confusion: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=213298 > If a user wants to use a previous version

Re: www/subsonic-standalone license

', and build the port. Also the 'www/subsonic' port is still on version 5.3 so people can use that as well. I could not find a license for version 6.0. I checked the README.TXT that came with the v6.0 jar and it does not seem to be up to date. It says subsonic is "free software" and under

Re: www/subsonic-standalone license

iles, and the code seemed to be gone for 5.3 is now on GitHub: https://github.com/sindremehus/subsonic I don't know whether 6.0 is quintessential, but from a pure license perspective it seems odd that everyone now has to use a proprietary license with no options given even though we still hav

Re: www/subsonic-standalone license

Ohh, I realize earlier I'm not the maintainer and was only CC'ed on the first email. Regardless I'll go search to see if I can find the license for subsonic 6.0. Franco, what do you mean a maintainer drop? Also Madsonic, which is supposedly GPL based on their website is available. Thanks, Josh

Re: www/subsonic-standalone license

> On 28 Oct 2016, at 4:41 PM, Joshua Ruehlig <joshrueh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > sure I'll take a look. I assume all I need to do is find and set the > current license? I would like to take this opportunity to ask why we have a maintainer drop whilst doing the upg

Re: www/subsonic-standalone license

sure I'll take a look. I assume all I need to do is find and set the current license? On Oct 28, 2016 6:41 AM, "Michael Zhilin" <miz...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > Issue: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=213299 (created > 20 days ago). > >

www/subsonic-standalone license

Hi, Issue: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=213299 (created 20 days ago). License of www/subsonic-standalone is GPL [1], but actually this version of software (v.6) is available only as free binaries. Also it includes trial version of functionalities which can be purchased

Re: poudriere / logitechmediaserver: License SDL needs confirmation, but BATCH is defined

Don Lewis <truck...@freebsd.org> wrote: > On 8 Oct, Michael Grimm wrote: >> Don Lewis <truck...@freebsd.org> wrote: >>> >>> On 8 Oct, Michael Grimm wrote: >>>>| >> Ignoring audio/logitechmediaserver: License SDL needs >>

Re: poudriere / logitechmediaserver: License SDL needs confirmation, but BATCH is defined

one, I need to migrate to > >>> audio/logitechmediaserver. > >>> > >>> But I am failing to get this port compiled by poudriere (3.2-pre): > >>> > >>> | ? > >>> | ---End make.conf— > >>> |

Re: poudriere / logitechmediaserver: License SDL needs confirmation, but BATCH is defined

I am failing to get this port compiled by poudriere (3.2-pre): >>> >>> | ? >>> | ---End make.conf— >>> | >> Ignoring audio/logitechmediaserver: License SDL needs >>> confirmation, but BATCH is defined >>> | ? >>> >>

Re: poudriere / logitechmediaserver: License SDL needs confirmation, but BATCH is defined

; >> | ? >> | ---End make.conf— >> | >> Ignoring audio/logitechmediaserver: License SDL needs >> confirmation, but BATCH is defined >> | ? >> >> I did try to run ? >> >> poudriere testport -j stable -c -i audio/log

Re: poudriere / logitechmediaserver: License SDL needs confirmation, but BATCH is defined

| >> Ignoring audio/logitechmediaserver: License SDL needs > confirmation, but BATCH is defined > | ? > > I did try to run ? > > poudriere testport -j stable -c -i audio/logitechmediaserver > poudriere testport -j stable -c -I audio/logitechmediaserver >

poudriere / logitechmediaserver: License SDL needs confirmation, but BATCH is defined

Hi — as audio/squeezeboxserver has gone, I need to migrate to audio/logitechmediaserver. But I am failing to get this port compiled by poudriere (3.2-pre): | … | ---End make.conf— | >> Ignoring audio/logitechmediaserver: License SDL needs confirmation, but

Re: LICENSE questions

ber 2016 at 00:25, Mathieu Arnold <m...@freebsd.org> > >>> 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 ? >

Re: LICENSE questions

8, 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" >>>

Re: LICENSE questions

=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

Re: LICENSE questions

gt;>>>>> 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

Re: LICENSE questions

> wrote: >>>> On 10/02/2016 05:27 PM, Eitan Adler wrote: >>>>> On 2 October 2016 at 14:44, Montgomery-Smith, Stephen >>>>> <step...@missouri.edu> wrote: >>>>>> So I have a couple of ports, science/cdf and graphics/opendx, whic

Re: LICENSE questions

2 October 2016 at 14:44, 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 >>&

Re: LICENSE questions

uri.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? >>> >>> The other answers are correct. If the license is

Re: LICENSE questions

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. >> >>&g

Re: LICENSE questions

/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

Re: LICENSE questions

On 10/02/2016 05:27 PM, Eitan Adler wrote: > On 2 October 2016 at 14:44, 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 L

Re: LICENSE questions

On 2 October 2016 at 14:44, 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? The other answers are correct.

Re: LICENSE questions

On Sun, 2 Oct 2016 18:44:43 + "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? Li

Re: LICENSE questions

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 tough

LICENSE questions

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

Re: LICENSE documentation

"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 impossi

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

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 softw

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

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 > > L

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 withou

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 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 sit

Re: Makefile LICENSE options

On Fri, Sep 09, 2016 at 09:03:24AM +0100, Bob Eager wrote: > On Fri, 9 Sep 2016 03:39:51 -0400 > Randy Westlund <rwest...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Is there a list of possible values for LICENSE in port makefiles? I > > can't find anything in the Porter's Handbook. >

Re: Makefile LICENSE options

On Fri, 9 Sep 2016 03:39:51 -0400 Randy Westlund <rwest...@gmail.com> wrote: > Is there a list of possible values for LICENSE in port makefiles? I > can't find anything in the Porter's Handbook. > > I'm expecting to find a table that shows how each license should be &

Makefile LICENSE options

Is there a list of possible values for LICENSE in port makefiles? I can't find anything in the Porter's Handbook. I'm expecting to find a table that shows how each license should be written, e.g. use 'BSD3CLAUSE' and not '3CALUSEBSD'. signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Re: License info Q

Perhaps easier than spending developer resources on administrative metadata perhaps an automated monthly email to port maintainers who have missing or inaccurate LICENSE= data, requesting this variable be added to makefiles and manifests, would improve things? Whatever the means of generating

Re: License info Q

Roger Marquis wrote: > Perhaps easier than spending developer resources on administrative metadata > perhaps an automated monthly email to port maintainers who have missing or > inaccurate LICENSE= data, requesting this variable be added to makefiles and > manifests, would improve

Re: License info Q

On 24 November 2015 at 17:15, A.J. "Fonz" van Werven <free...@skysmurf.nl> wrote: > Now, I don't mind drafting a section for the Handbook based on what I can > find in /usr/ports/Mk *IF* someone who is familiar with the details of the > license framework is willing to

Re: License info Q

Eitan Adler wrote: >> Now, I don't mind drafting a section for the Handbook based on what I can >> find in /usr/ports/Mk *IF* someone who is familiar with the details of the >> license framework is willing to a) check my work before I submit it to the >> docs@ team and b

Re: License info Q

Kubilay Kocak <ko...@freebsd.org> wrote: > On 18/11/2015 9:48 PM, Fabian Keil wrote: > > Roger Marquis <marq...@roble.com> wrote: > > > >> I need to get license info from a batch of ports and packages. > >> > >> Problem is not all

Re: License info Q

On Wed, Nov 18, 2015, at 04:48, Fabian Keil wrote: > Roger Marquis <marq...@roble.com> wrote: > > > I need to get license info from a batch of ports and packages. > > > > Problem is not all the specified ports/pkgs are installed or have license > > info in

Re: License info Q

Roger Marquis <marq...@roble.com> wrote: > I need to get license info from a batch of ports and packages. > > Problem is not all the specified ports/pkgs are installed or have license > info in their Makefile. Is there a reliable way to enumerate port or > package licens

Re: License info Q

On 18/11/2015 9:48 PM, Fabian Keil wrote: > Roger Marquis <marq...@roble.com> wrote: > >> I need to get license info from a batch of ports and packages. >> >> Problem is not all the specified ports/pkgs are installed or have license >> info in their Makefile.

License info Q

I need to get license info from a batch of ports and packages. Problem is not all the specified ports/pkgs are installed or have license info in their Makefile. Is there a reliable way to enumerate port or package license strings, preferably without fetching a package tarfile? Roger

Re: help categorise license

On 27/07/2015 7:36 PM, Vitaly Magerya wrote: On 2015-07-27 11:59, Anton Shterenlikht wrote: I'm making a port of http://netlib.org/math. Their license looks like BSD2CLAUSE, but can somebody please check: http://netlib.org/math/license.htm That link should end with .html, not .htm. In any

Re: help categorise license

On 2015-07-27 13:52, Kubilay Kocak wrote: (Also note that our license framework should probably be scrapped entirely, because it is ambiguous and undocumented). Or it could just be made less ambiguous and documented. Otherwise, we should scrap entirely all other things that are also

Re: help categorise license

On Tue, 28 Jul 2015 13:24:59 +1000 Kubilay Kocak ko...@freebsd.org wrote On 27/07/2015 11:18 PM, Vitaly Magerya wrote: On 2015-07-27 13:52, Kubilay Kocak wrote: (Also note that our license framework should probably be scrapped entirely, because it is ambiguous and undocumented

Re: help categorise license

On 27/07/2015 11:18 PM, Vitaly Magerya wrote: On 2015-07-27 13:52, Kubilay Kocak wrote: (Also note that our license framework should probably be scrapped entirely, because it is ambiguous and undocumented). Or it could just be made less ambiguous and documented. Otherwise, we should scrap

Re: help categorise license

On 2015-07-27 11:59, Anton Shterenlikht wrote: I'm making a port of http://netlib.org/math. Their license looks like BSD2CLAUSE, but can somebody please check: http://netlib.org/math/license.htm That link should end with .html, not .htm. In any case, the license seems identical to the 3

help categorise license

I'm making a port of http://netlib.org/math. Their license looks like BSD2CLAUSE, but can somebody please check: http://netlib.org/math/license.htm Thanks Anton ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo

Question: License

Portlint suggested I set LICENSE for sysutils/lsof. What is the appropriate value for the following: License === Lsof has no license. Its use and distribution are subject to these terms and conditions, found in each lsof source file. (The copyright year in or format of the notice may

Re: Question: License

From bsd.licenses.mk : # Case 2: license only known by the port (aka unknown). # # In this case LICENSE_{PERMS,NAME} are mandatory, in addition to # either LICENSE_FILE or LICENSE_TEXT. Optional variable is # LICENSE_GROUPS. # # Available components for LICENSE_PERMS: # dist-mirror

Re: Question: License

Larry Rosenman wrote: Portlint suggested I set LICENSE for sysutils/lsof. What is the appropriate value for the following: License === Lsof has no license. Its use and distribution are subject to these terms and conditions, found in each lsof source file. (The copyright year

Re: Question: License

On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Larry Rosenman l...@lerctr.org wrote: Portlint suggested I set LICENSE for sysutils/lsof. What is the appropriate value for the following: License === Lsof has no license. Its use and distribution are subject to these terms and conditions, found

Port License Changes Depending on Options

this by choosing to change the license if GPL is enabled: LICENSE= MIT [snip...] .if ${PORT_OPTIONS:MGPL} MAKE_ENV+= USE_GPL=1 LICENSE= GPLv3 .endif However, I am not sure if this is the accepted way to specify the license in this case. Does anyone have any other opinion? -- Reed A. Cartwright, PhD Barrett

License compatibility issues?

After a discussion on another list, I'm wondering if anyone has ever done anything to verify that the license requirements of the dependencies of a package (I don't know of any licenses that would cause problems for a port, as those don't involve distribution of derived works in the form

Re: License compatibility issues?

On Mar 6, 2015, at 1:39 PM, Mike Meyer m...@mired.org wrote: After a discussion on another list, I'm wondering if anyone has ever done anything to verify that the license requirements of the dependencies of a package (I don't know of any licenses that would cause problems for a port, as those

  1   2   3   >