svn commit: r320152 - head/net/v6eval

[Alexey Dokuchaev]

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

Does it make sense to convince upstream to bring their license text to the
standard template?

>  LICENSE_FILE in order to make the packages include the license files
>  which contain copyright notice, and to remove the license files from
>  PORTDOCS.  Is this usage incorrect?

This usage is correct: license files should not be part of PORTDOCS, but
I would take it further and say that we should not abuse LICENSE_FILE for
standard licenses.

>  If this is not allowed, I am wondering why we allow specifying
>  LICENSE_FILE for well-known licenses.

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

./danfe