cvs commit: ports CHANGES UPDATING ports/Mk bsd.port.mk ports/archivers/stuffit Makefile ports/astro/linux-setiathome Makefile

[Scott Long]

Trevor Johnson wrote:
>>netchild    2004-12-31 18:24:10 UTC
>>
> 
> I object both to this patch and to the way it was handled.
> 
> When someone offers software under a restrictive licence, we mustn't
> simply ignore the restrictions, as this patch would have us do.  That puts
> the project in a bad light.  Although I highly doubt that the authors of,
> for example, the GNU libc, would seek legal redress, this patch gives them
> a reason.  Last year I wanted to make some provision for packaging the
> linux_base-8 port in a way that would satisfy the licence, but I was
> blocked by portmgr (my request for a repo copy to that end was denied).
> When obrien raised the issue again recently in mail to me and to portmgr,
> I answered him but there was no response from portmgr, and certainly no
> intimation that they were going to do this.
> 
> Alexander Leidinger asked me to give up maintenance of numerous ports, and
> I made it clear that I did not want to do so.  It isn't right that, after
> creating them and working on them over the years, my maintainership be
> just taken away by portmgr's fiat.  I find it extremely discouraging.
> 
> I also have some technical objections to this patch but I don't want to
> lose focus, and I haven't had a chance to look at what it does yet.  The
> patch as presented to me was quite different:
> <URL:http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=70539>.
> 
> The original conception of portmgr was that it would be a group that would
> maintain the bsd.port.mk file.  It proved inadequate at that, yet it has
> since been granted more and more sweeping powers.  Core, please reconsider
> its charter.

I assume that you are talking about this part, yes?

 >    - remove RESTRICTED from some GPL licensed ports, even when we only
 >      distribute binaries, we get them from official linux sites, so
 >      anyone can grab them there if he needs to
 >

FWIW, I brought up similar concerns with Kris a few days ago, and it was
discussed further in private with myself, him, and Warner.  I'm still
very concerned about it and I don't think that a real resolution was
reached.  This was something that was going to be brought up in an
upcoming concall, but that obviously hasn't happened yet.  It's likely
that we need a real legal opinion here, not just idle conjecture.  But
yes, this is on the radar and I hope to have a resolution soon.

Scott