mail/imaptools: port removal at Monday April 9th

[Chris Rees]

On 9 April 2012 17:49, Julian H. Stacey <jhs at berklix.com> wrote:
>> From:         Chris Rees <crees at freebsd.org>
>>
>> Well, whatever he says, he can't revoke the license of what's already
>> been distributed.
>>
>> ############################################################################
>> # Copyright (c) 2008 Rick Sanders <rfs9999 at earthlink.net>                  #
>> #                                                                          #
>> # Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software for any    #
>> # purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above   #
>> # copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies.        #
>
> ...
>
> Exactly !
>
>
>> From: Mark Linimon <linimon at lonesome.com>
>
>> portmgr's policy is to honor removal requests, no matter the circumstances.
> ................................................ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>
> Irresponsible.  Real 'Managers' shoulder responsibility.  So ...
>
> In /usr/ports/Mk/bsd.port.mk, define a warning variable after
> NO_CDROM, NO_PACKAGE, [ RESTRICTED_FILES ], with example:
>
>  WARNING+="Generic author tried to retrospectively withdraw sources."
>  #     Maintainer suggest see files/... & http://...
>
> Allow individual ports Maintainers to indicate status of issues.
> Allow individual installers to decide their Own take on issues, Not Yours !
>
> - Ports wrappers belong to FreeBSD, not generic authors.
> - Sources once published can't be unpublished.
>  (IMO No need of a new project & port name to excuse retention).
> - Distfiles if not on freebsd.org site are not even our problem.
>
> portmgr should retain respect by dumping a foolish policy.  sticking
> to technical & avoiding programmers guesses & fears about laws, or
> assumptions USA law controls global law or whatever else. Stay
> technical.  The globe has 196 countries with their own legal
> jurisdictions, individual installers should be able to make their
> own decision on law & risks & morality as localy appropriate.

Hi Julian,

I understand your viewpoint, but given the horrible experiences
certain people had on this kind of thing (you were around then, too),
I think that the 'make a fork and port that instead' is perfectly
reasonable.  At least then the software has a maintainer.

Chris