[Bug 187926] New port: devel/liballium - Tor pluggable transports utility library

[bugzilla-noreply at freebsd.org]

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187926

--- Comment #16 from John Marino <marino at FreeBSD.org> ---
(In reply to Adam Weinberger from comment #15)
> (In reply to John Marino from comment #14)
> > line 75?
> > I didn't say it was great.
> 
> It's definitely there, but it just says the variable *exists*, not what it
> does. Last I remember hearing on the topic, it was decided that merely
> setting LICENSE was insufficient, because if any word was changed from the
> canonical license then we were violating terms by not distributing the
> provided license.


That came from mat@ and a lot of people pushed back on the idea that
LICENCE_FILE is required unconditionally.  The original thinking what that *if*
the license matched word for word what ports provided, just the LICENSE=
definition was enough.

Of course, the license framework is a red-headed stepchild that half of us just
want to go away because nobody loves it, so there's no definitive answer.


> So my understanding was that, to comply with the terms of the licenses, the
> license had to be distributed with the packaged binary.



if LICENSE= is defined, the license is distributed with the binary.  The
question is where there text comes from the ports templates or from the
distribution tarball (or from the ports Makefile with LICENSE_TEXT=)

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.