Re: Need opinion on license type

From: Lorenzo Salvadore <>
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2022 12:54:31 UTC

------- Original Message -------
On Friday, June 17th, 2022 at 13:47, Nuno Teixeira <> wrote:

> Hello Lorenzo,
> First of all thank you all that help me on this subject.
> Ok, I've take a look at math/maxima and I simplified it to:
> ---
> LICENSE_NAME= Iozone clause
> LICENSE_FILE= ${WRKSRC}/../..//docs/License.txt
> LICENSE_PERMS= dist-mirror dist-sell pkg-mirror pkg-sell auto-accept
> --
> portlint and 'make check-license' is happy
> Is this ok?

For LICENSE and LICENSE_NAME you can use arbitrary strings. In my case I
used the word 'clause' because it is a clause added to GPLv2 which is the
main license, but in your case, since I believe the text you posted is the
full license, I would use the word 'license'; thus I would define

LICENSE_NAME= Iozone license

Or something similar. But choose the words that make more sense to you: you
surely know the software better than me.

About LICENSE_PERMS, it looks right to me, but again I am not a lawyer.

LICENSE_FILE seems wrong to me. I assume that your distfile is .
In that case I think you should define

More generally, a path starting with ${WRKSRC} using .. to get out of
${WRKSRC} seems a bad idea to me. Moreover I don't see the need for
// instead of /.


Lorenzo Salvadore