License issues (e.g. mod_throttle, mod_watch)
kris at obsecurity.org
Sun May 25 16:06:19 PDT 2003
On Sun, May 25, 2003 at 04:37:17PM +0000, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
> 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.
We should follow the authors' licenses carefully. You're correct that
we don't collectively pay enough attention to this.
> 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,
> 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.
I would personally love it if you did some work on this.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/attachments/20030525/a0c0468b/attachment.bin
More information about the freebsd-ports