Ion3 license violation

Philip Paeps philip at
Thu Dec 13 02:42:56 PST 2007

On 2007-12-12 07:22:50 (+0000), Tuomo Valkonen <tuomov at> wrote:
> Since the so-called package "maintainer" seems to have gone AWOL
> (as is typical):

I have not gone awol.  I replied to your email about the port being out of
date the day after you sent it.  Not reading my email for a day does not
constitute "awol" in my book.

As I wrote to you, I was perfectly happy to update the port to the new
version, and add any warnings about the (non-default, not packaged) patch.

Someone removed the port before I could commit the patch to update it though.

I'm not going to start a long flamewar to recover the port, but unless portmgr
objects, I would like to get it back.

It is not particularly difficult to comply with the licence.  It just takes a
bit of time (which I'm happy to spend) to keep up with new releases.  Of
course, sometimes new releases will coincide with ports freezes.  I'm happy to
mark it RESTRICTED or whatever with a note that its being outdated is not

Anyway.  How does portmgr feel about this?  Aye or nay?  If "aye", I'll add it
back and continue to maintain it, if "nay", so be it.

 - Philip

Philip Paeps                                    Please don't Cc me, I am
philip at                               subscribed to the list.

  "These speakers do look like toilets."
  "That's why they're playing shit through them."
  	-- Ramsay and Mafoo in the Lighthouse
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :

More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list