svn commit: r320152 - head/net/v6eval

[Hiroki Sato]

Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe at FreeBSD.ORG> wrote
  in <20130607094637.GA84832 at FreeBSD.org>:

da> On Fri, Jun 07, 2013 at 05:01:01PM +0900, Hiroki Sato wrote:
da> > Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe at FreeBSD.ORG> wrote
da> > da> Can you elaborate on why you insist on standard license file to be
da> > da> explicitly set instead of using the one from the pool?  I know that
da> > da> some of us are in the middle of cleaning the ports tree from such
da> > da> cases.
da> >
da> >  Just because it includes copyright notice and not exactly the same as
da> >  the standard template.  I have converted several ports to use
da>
da> Does it make sense to convince upstream to bring their license text to the
da> standard template?

 This software will never updated because the project was concluded.

da> >  LICENSE_FILE in order to make the packages include the license files
da> >  which contain copyright notice, and to remove the license files from
da> >  PORTDOCS.  Is this usage incorrect?
da>
da> This usage is correct: license files should not be part of PORTDOCS, but
da> I would take it further and say that we should not abuse LICENSE_FILE for
da> standard licenses.

 I still do not understand what is "abuse" here.  We do not have
 Templates/Licenses/BSD, and a template of BSD license does not make
 sense because it always needs who the copyright holder is.  Something
 like "see this URL" does not work at least for BSD license because it
 requires the copyright notice and conditions *in the distribution*.

 It is not uncommon that a pre-built package of a small BSD-licensed
 software contains only binaries and a COPYING file.  Even if it is a
 standard BSD license, we need to add the COPYING file to PLIST in
 some way due to the following condition:

 |2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
 |   notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in
 |   the documentation and/or other materials provided with the
 |   distribution.

 A typical example in ports I maintain is net/cvsync.  It uses
 standard 3-clause BSD license.  Do you think LICENSE_FILE in
 cvsync/Makefile should be removed, too?

da> >  If this is not allowed, I am wondering why we allow specifying
da> >  LICENSE_FILE for well-known licenses.
da>
da> Nothing is technically not allowed here; right now it is still more of a
da> matter of personal taste.  I am not sure if denying setting LICENSE_FILE
da> for well-known licenses is OK, IANAL.  But given the fact that answer to
da> a question "what's your code's licenses" is typically one word, I do not
da> support setting LICENSE_FILE for those licenses, when simple BSD/GPL/MIT
da> seems already being sufficient by common practice.

 What I meant is not technical one.  In my understanding, what is
 allowed for known licenses is clearly described in the following
 sentences in bsd.license.mk:

 # Case 1: license defined in the framework (aka "known").
 #
 # In this case the only allowed variables to set are LICENSE_FILE and
 # LICENSE_DISTFILES. The rest are managed by the framework and are not allowed
 # to change.

 I thought LICENSE_FILE was just for COPYING file when it was in the
 distfile and there was no applicable one in Templates/Licenses.

 For GPL and other licenses which do not require a license text is
 included in the distribution, no LICENSE_FILE is fine.  However,
 licenses like BSD and MIT are different.  If LICENSE_FILE is not
 supposed to be used for including COPYING file when it is a standard
 license, I will remove it from my ports and re-add COPYING file into
 pkg-plist.

-- Hiroki
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 196 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/svn-ports-all/attachments/20130608/63ddc7d4/attachment.sig>