cvs commit: ports/Mk bsd.licenses.db.mk bsd.licenses.mk bsd.port.mk

[Alejandro Pulver]

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.

According to:
http://www.netbsd.org/docs/pkgsrc/fixes.html#handling-licenses

The port developer should set both LICENSE (only one) and restrictions 
(NO_{BIN,SRC}_ON_{FTP,CDROM}) independently.

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).

Regards,
Ale