Drop of portindex
Michael C. Shultz
ringworm at inbox.lv
Wed Sep 15 17:17:50 PDT 2004
On Wednesday 15 September 2004 09:33, Michael Nottebrock wrote:
> On Wednesday 15 September 2004 17:44, Jack L. Stone wrote:
> > At 11:21 AM 9.15.2004 -0400, Adam Weinberger wrote:
> > >Let it be, people, and stop attacking other developers.
> > >
> > ># Adam
> > Obviously, we all won't agree, but I think you should be more concerned
> > about the damages this did to the ports' credibility. Up until now, I
> > have always "trusted" the ports -- some of that has diminished because of
> > this episode.
> Yes, that concerns me as well. One thing that surely can be learnt from
> this episode is that ports committers (not excluding myself here) need to
> be more careful about the licensing situation of software before committing
> it to ports (I was told previous version of portindex had stuff like "(c)
> 2004 Radim Kolar, GPL" in one source file and "public domain" in another,
> but no general license attached to the whole package).
> I'm not saying we need to go debian on the ports-tree and waste valuable
> time doing endless licensing reviews and ridiculous debating, but things
> like portindex clearly must not be committed that easily in the future.
I say in how many years that FreeBSD and ports existed has this sort of thing
occurred? First time I've seen such a thing, and I've been using FreeBSD
since Version 2.0 so I say let this episode pass, no need for any new rules.
More information about the freebsd-ports