LICENSE documentation

[Kurt Jaeger]

Hi!

> On 2016-09-14 10:19, Bob Eager wrote:
> > 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."
> 
> My interpretation of this phrase is not that LICENSE variable is
> mandatory (to which I would object on the basis that ports licensing
> framework is vague, incomplete, and apparently used by noone too), but
> rather that for the program to be freely distributable at all, it's
> author(s) need to explicitly give their permission. That permission is
> the license. If no license statement can be found in the sources or the
> website, then no permission is given, and it's technically illegal for
> anyone but the author(s) to use the software.

This interpretation is based on the hypothesis
that the user is located in a country that has this kind of legal rule.

This is not the case in every country, so your conclusion is not
always valid.

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