License issues (e.g. mod_throttle, mod_watch)

[Christian Weisgerber]

It is my impression that the FreeBSD porters as a collective handle
license issues in ports more lax than, say, their OpenBSD counterparts.
I'm not sure whether this is intentional or due to negligence.

What is our policy here?  Do we want to strictly follow the authors'
licenses or is everything that is downloadable fair game?  This is
not a rhetoric question.

Since I know some of you will demand specifics, here are the latest
two examples that made me think about the issue.

www/mod_throttle.  This comes with a license so short I can quote it
in full:

  This source distribution is made freely available and there is
  no charge for its use, provided you retain this notice, disclaimers,
  author's copyright, and credits.

Note that there is no mention of redistribution.  That means
redistribution in any form is prohibited.  Accordingly, this port
should be marked RESTRICTED.

www/mod_watch, by the same author.  This has a more specific license,
see

  http://www.snert.com/Software/mod_watch/

Non-commercial redistribution of binaries is not permitted without
prior written consent.  That means NO_PACKAGE.  If the FreeBSD
project happens to have such permission and we don't care about
transitivity (do we?), then the limits on commercial redistribution
should still imply NO_CDROM.

I suspect a full-fledged license audit of the ports tree would turn
up a sizable number of problematic cases.  Now, before I go out and
prod maintainers about individual cases I run into, I would like
to have some sort of consensus opinion or portmgr statement that
clarifies our stance on this.

-- 
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber                          naddy at mips.inka.de