cvs commit: ports/www/moinmoin Makefile distinfo pkg-plist

[Alexey Dokuchaev]

On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 06:18:39PM +0800, wen heping wrote:
> 2011/1/20 Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe at freebsd.org>:
> > On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 01:32:16PM +0300, Boris Samorodov wrote:
> >> Wen Heping <wen at FreeBSD.org> writes:
> >> > +LICENSE=  GPLv2
> >> > +LICENSE_FILE=   ${WRKSRC}/docs/licenses/COPYING
> >>
> >> This is a general question, just picking this commit up.
> >> Should we provide the license text if it's a standard one?
> >> My vote is "no"...
> >
> > I would also said no. In fact, I find it abusive and wrong to use the
> > LICENSE_FILE at all for standard licenses. Then problem is that people
> > don't care, and we (ports people) do not do enough to educate them, and
> > even sometimes encourage mistakes by committing bad submissions.
> 
> I do not think it is a wrong use when set LICENSE_FILE even it's a
> standard one.  What is its harm?  It could at least help the user to find
> the license file easily.

Licenses are installed in the standard place anyways, so finding it
should not be a problem.  However, explicit definition of LICENSE_FILE
for standard licenses goes against general declarative idea of Makefile.
When you ask the author, how is your software licensed, you expect to
hear something like "BSD" or "GPLv2".  This is sufficient in 99% cases.
I think that usage of our LICENSE framework should follow these simple
(and natural) way.  More over, explicit LICENSE_FILE could be incomplete
or non-verbatim copy of the standard license.  Last but not least: why
increase entropy?

./danfe