interactive ports - the plague

Nikola Lečić nikola.lecic at
Wed Mar 5 16:54:32 UTC 2008

Hash: RIPEMD160

On Wed, 5 Mar 2008 11:37:38 -0500
Wesley Shields <wxs at> wrote:
> I was just informed that a port which is gpl2 _only_ can not be built
> into a package if it depends on a port which is gpl3.  However, IANAL
> and have not done any research into this so don't take my word for it.

(Yes, among other things. For example, that's why Claws-Mail recently
cancelled ClamAV support and caused a lot of problems for some

> I'm not sure how this is enforced other than asking maintainers to pay
> close attention to their ports and marking them as NO_PACKAGE
> accordingly.  Maybe requiring explicit license information in the
> Makefile will have the added benefit of forcing maintainers to look at
> the license.


IMHO the way pkgsrc people implemented it is both elegant and great.
Maintainers are forced to pay particular attention to the licencing and
to discuss it on the list if something's unclear. This means that some
licences automatically imply something like NO_PACKAGE -- and this
means that Ports Management has a better overview and control over this
sensitive matter (just remember recent ion case). As explained here:

(For those who want to take a look and to save some time, you download
the current pkgsrc branch like this:

  setenv CVSROOT anoncvs at
  setenv CVS_RSH
  ssh cvs -q checkout -P pkgsrc

See pkgsrc/licenses.)

- -- 
Nikola Lečić = Никола Лечић
fingerprint : FEF3 66AF C90E EDC3 D878  7CDC 956D F4AB A377 1C9B
Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD)


More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list