License issues (e.g. mod_throttle, mod_watch)

Kris Kennaway kris at
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,
> see
> 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
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :

More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list