License info Q

[Fabian Keil]

Kubilay Kocak <koobs at FreeBSD.org> wrote:

> On 18/11/2015 9:48 PM, Fabian Keil wrote:
> > Roger Marquis <marquis at 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 license strings, preferably without fetching a package tarfile?  
> > 
> > No. Also note that the "license information" in the Makefiles is often
> > misleading[1] and thus not particular useful if you actually care about
> > license compliance.  

> If they're incorrect, please submit an issue to rectify them (either in
> ports, or upstream), like Awesome George has here:
> 
> https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204638

I tried this in the beginning, for example for sysutils/zsd which
has been tainted with obviously[1] bogus license goo for more than a
year now despite various complaints and a request to assign it to
someone else:
https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/svn-ports-all/2015-May/093367.html

> > Unfortunately reporting incorrect license information seems to be
> > a waste of time so things are unlikely to improve any time soon:
> > https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195807  
> 
> It's not a waste of time, it's a collaborative effort. For a full and
> complete response (that I urge you to read and consider completely), see
> the following thread, including my last reply:
> 
> https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/2015-July/099906.html

I'm aware of the thread. It's not the first one of its kind and probably
will not be the last one either.

It does not address the problem that various committers in favour of the
license "framework" apparently have the time to force it upon maintainers
against their expressed wishes but are unwilling to document it or even
explain what their changes are supposed to mean and how they came to
the conclusion that the added license information is or at least could be
correct.

While this is backed by portmgr@ it's unlikely to inspire goodwill
in volunteers.

> > [1] The lack of documentation doesn't help.  
> 
> In the meantime, we'll continue to attempt to annotate software metadata
> in the ports tree as best we can.

As opposed to taking a step back, addressing the concerns and documenting
the process.

Fabian

[1] Obviously "obviously" is a stretch, but despite the lack of documentation
I assume that the license "code" is expected to be relevant for at least parts
of the code in the distfile or the resulting package.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/attachments/20151119/9ee1b899/attachment.bin>