Drop of portindex

[Robin Schoonover]

On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 20:56:38 -0500
Mark Linimon <linimon at lonesome.com> wrote:

> On Wednesday 15 September 2004 07:43 pm, Gary Kline wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 15, 2004 at 05:56:15PM -0600, Robin Schoonover wrote:
> > > I think we may want to record what the license for the port is in
> > > the Makefile.  For example:
> > >
> > > LICENSE= GPL
> > >
> > > If multiple parts are somehow under multiple licenses, we could
> > > also do:
> > >
> > > LICENSE= GPL BSD
> 
> This was discussed recently and the majority opinion was that the
> default setting of these Makevars would be 'stale'.  In addition, a
> few people were concerned that we might be making an implied guarantee
> about the state of the licenses.
> 
> My personal opinion is that we shouldn't try to create a mechanism to
> enforce policy based on a small number of unusual cases.  (ISTR
> someone else asking for something in src/ to be removed some time ago,
> but such things are relatively rare).
> 

The major reason I suggested the idea is because we -do- forget these
small number of unusual cases (most NO_CDROM, NO_PACKAGE, etc cases
fall into this). My idea is that enforcing a variable would force us to
-know- what the license is, or if we don't know, at least do something
about it.

Portindex was released without ever actually specifying a license in
some files, specified some in others, and public domain in another
(Didn't actually contain any text of any licenses I don't think). The
site it was distributed on listed the software as "Open Source".

Now, the part that makes it bad is it looks like it shouldn't have been
mirrored, but it was.  That's what is bothering me.

Hmm.  Random license changes don't help us though.

-- 
Robin Schoonover (aka End)
#
# Toe:  A part of the foot used to find furniture in the dark.
#            -- Rilla May