svn commit: r421549 - in head: . Mk
Kubilay Kocak
koobs at FreeBSD.org
Thu Sep 8 14:03:19 UTC 2016
On 8/09/2016 11:15 PM, Dmitry Marakasov wrote:
> Author: amdmi3 Date: Thu Sep 8 13:15:06 2016 New Revision: 421549
> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/421549
>
> Log: Add support added for LICENSE=NONE, use it when the port
> doesn't have cleanly defined licensing terms. Note that without
> clean license allowing you to use and distribute the code it would be
> be illegal to do so in many jurisdictions, so for ports with NONE
> license no distfiles or packages are distributed.
I'm glad this finally got added, though I'm worried that NONE is
ambiguous and will unnecessarily cause otherwise package'able /
distribute'able software to not be (inadvertently), and that None says
more than we want its behaviour to mean.
I truly do not intend to $bikeshed on the name, but are we saying:
That ports with no *explicit* license terms should not be
distributed/packaged by default?
If so, shouldn't empty(LICENSE) do this?
If all this does is avoid not having a whole bunch of existing ports not
be packaged because they don't yet have LICENSE set, let's fix that.
It's a great incentive to maintainers to get them added (explicitly). We
could then even upgrade adding LICENSE to a requirement for ports rather
than being optional (as it has been).
What if a piece of software doesn't have 'cleanly' (what is the actual
definition we should use?) defined license terms, but says/implies by
some other method that it is free to be distributed/packaged? Say for
example the software has debian/spec files in the sources but otherwise
says nothing.
Might LICENSE=UNDEFINED be a less ambiguous term/name for this "cant
distribute/package because we want to be legally safe" behaviour?
./koobs
> While here, fix trailing whitespace in CHANGES.
>
> Approved by: portmgr (bapt) Differential Revision: D7816
>
> Modified: head/CHANGES head/Mk/bsd.licenses.db.mk
>
> Modified: head/CHANGES
> ==============================================================================
>
>
--- head/CHANGES Thu Sep 8 13:03:13 2016 (r421548)
> +++ head/CHANGES Thu Sep 8 13:15:06 2016 (r421549) @@ -10,6 +10,15
> @@ in the release notes and/or placed into
>
> All ports committers are allowed to commit to this file.
>
> +20160908: +AUTHOR: amdmi3 at FreeBSD.org + + Support has been added
> for NONE license, use it when the port doesn't + have cleanly
> defined licensing terms. Note that without clean license + allowing
> you to use and distribute the code it would be be illegal to do + so
> in many jurisdictions, so for ports with NONE license no distfiles
> or + packages are distributed. + 20160824: AUTHOR: mat at FreeBSD.org
>
> @@ -39,16 +48,16 @@ AUTHOR: mat at FreeBSD.org 20160824: AUTHOR:
> kde at FreeBSD.org
>
> - A new USES file has been introduced: USES=kde:4, which replaces
> the old - bsd.kde4.mk file in preparation for upcoming KDE
> Frameworks and Plasma5 - ports. - - Ports depending on KDE4 have to
> switch from + A new USES file has been introduced: USES=kde:4, which
> replaces the old + bsd.kde4.mk file in preparation for upcoming KDE
> Frameworks and Plasma5 + ports. + + Ports depending on KDE4 have to
> switch from USE_KDE4=foo bar - to + to USES=kde:4 USE_KDE=foo bar -
> and make sure to switch from using KDE4_PREFIX to the new name
> KDE_PREFIX + and make sure to switch from using KDE4_PREFIX to the
> new name KDE_PREFIX in the Makefiles as well as plists.
>
> 20160821:
>
> Modified: head/Mk/bsd.licenses.db.mk
> ==============================================================================
>
>
--- head/Mk/bsd.licenses.db.mk Thu Sep 8 13:03:13 2016 (r421548)
> +++ head/Mk/bsd.licenses.db.mk Thu Sep 8 13:15:06 2016 (r421549) @@
> -63,6 +63,9 @@ _LICENSE_LIST+= ART10 ARTPERL10 ART20 # PHP family
> _LICENSE_LIST+= PHP202 PHP30 PHP301
>
> +# Extras +_LICENSE_LIST+= NONE + # List of groups (only names must
> be present)
>
> _LICENSE_NAME_FSF= Free Software Foundation Approved @@ -268,6
> +271,10 @@ _LICENSE_GROUPS_PSFL= FSF GPL OSI _LICENSE_NAME_RUBY= Ruby
> License _LICENSE_GROUPS_RUBY= FSF
>
> +_LICENSE_NAME_NONE= No license specified +_LICENSE_GROUPS_NONE= #
> empty +_LICENSE_PERMS_NONE= auto-accept + _LICENSE_NAME_ZLIB= zlib
> License _LICENSE_GROUPS_ZLIB= GPL FSF OSI
>
>
More information about the svn-ports-head
mailing list