Drop of portindex

Greg Lewis glewis at eyesbeyond.com
Fri Sep 17 22:50:33 PDT 2004

On Wed, Sep 15, 2004 at 08:56:38PM -0500, Mark Linimon wrote:
> On Wednesday 15 September 2004 07:43 pm, Gary Kline wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 15, 2004 at 05:56:15PM -0600, Robin Schoonover wrote:
> > > I think we may want to record what the license for the port is in the
> > > Makefile.  For example:
> > >
> > >
> > > If multiple parts are somehow under multiple licenses, we could also do:
> > >
> This was discussed recently and the majority opinion was that the default
> setting of these Makevars would be 'stale'.  In addition, a few people were
> concerned that we might be making an implied guarantee about the state
> of the licenses.

FWIW, RPM spec files have a "License" tag that is used for exactly this
purpose.  In fact, its even a mandatory tag according to the Linux
Standards Base specification (see, for example,
particularly Table 1-8).

My point is not that we should conform to LSB, but rather that there is
at least one example of a very large set of third party software going
the other way.  Since writers of RPM spec files face the same issues
(keeping the tag in sync with the source and whether the tag is a
guarantee of licensing or not) I simply wonder how they tackled them
(if they did :).

Anyone know if this issue has come up in Gentoo?  It obviously has in
Debian since they categorise all their software into "free" and "non-free".

Greg Lewis                          Email   : glewis at eyesbeyond.com
Eyes Beyond                         Web     : http://www.eyesbeyond.com
Information Technology              FreeBSD : glewis at FreeBSD.org

More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list