cvs commit: ports/Mk bsd.licenses.db.mk bsd.licenses.mk
alepulver at FreeBSD.org
Wed May 26 18:51:09 UTC 2010
On 5/25/2010 11:23 PM, Alejandro Pulver wrote:
> On 5/25/2010 4:06 AM, Garrett Cooper wrote:
>> Thanks as well Alejandro for the hard work.
>> Just out of curiosity, was any exploration done with existing work in
>> the NetBSD side as far as existing licenses or naming schemes are
>> concerned? I ask because if it seems logical, I would go with some of
>> the names that they've established, because they're down to a fairly
>> good level of granularity (even between the different BSDL versions).
> No, but it's a good idea. I'll check it out before importing licenses.
One of the main differences between their version and ours is that they
separate licensing information from redistribution restrictions.
The port developer should set both LICENSE (only one) and restrictions
But our version was intended to replace RESTRICTED, NO_CDROM, NO_PACKAGE
(which is ambiguous as sometimes it's not used for redistribution
restrictions) and ports/LEGAL (may be automatically generated if
desired, after ports are converted).
We also gain a little more flexibility (the four possible combinations).
If desired, restriction names could be matched to their implementation
(pkg -> bin, dist -> src, etc).
Currently pkgsrc has 152 license files in /usr/ports/licenses. I think
it should be OK to start from there (for the ones needed).
I guess in practice most ports would use LICENSE=something and don't
bother with other variables, but for restricted ports or complicated
cases they may prove useful (specially with FOSSology, after the next
version is released).
More information about the cvs-all