LICENSE documentation

[Kurt Jaeger]

Hi!

> I recently had a minor patch (to one of the ports I maintain) bounced
> because I hadn't specified a LICENSE.
> 
> This port never did have LICENSE, and it had been updated recently with
> no issues. However, I was told that "I don't see any mention of any
> kind of license in the package or on the site, so it should be
> LICENSE=  NONE. Note that without clear licensing terms it's impossible
> to legally use and redistribute the code."
> 
> (I did erroneously interpret that, initially, to be saying that there
> MUST be a real license specified, although I realise from the above
> that NONE is acceptable (and presumably meets the criteria for "clear
> licensing terms")).

Even the "NONE" is in discussion, if it should be UNDEFINED or UNKNOWN or...

> Let me make it absolutely clear that I am not criticising or
> questioning the committers; they are just doing their job.
> 
> However, I wonder if two things ought to be done:
> 
> 1) There should be something in the Porter's Handbook about LICENSE.
> There is little or none, merely material about licensing in a more
> general sense. I would produce an update myself, but given the above, I
> am probably not the best person!

There are two text drafts in discussion, some of them for a long time:

https://reviews.freebsd.org/D56

https://reviews.freebsd.org/D7849

> 2) portlint currently says: "WARN: Makefile: Consider defining LICENSE.
> 0 fatal errors and 1 warning found." This is not really correct if
> LICENSE is mandatory.

Yes, that's unfortunate 8-}

-- 
pi at opsec.eu            +49 171 3101372                         4 years to go !