expiration of net/skype ?!

[Chris Rees]

On 1 May 2011 08:30, Matthias Andree <mandree at freebsd.org> wrote:
> Am 01.05.2011 09:18, schrieb Chris Rees:
>> On 1 May 2011 07:58, "mato" <gamato at users.sf.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Peter Jeremy wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 2011-Apr-26 01:47:30 +0200, martinko<gamato at users.sf.net>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So what is this deprecation and expiration of net/skype port please ??
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Whilst the Skype port still works, the version of Skype referenced by
>>>> the port is no longer available and later versions of Skype do not
>>>> (currently) work on FreeBSD.  My reading of the Skype license suggests
>>>> that the FreeBSD Project cannot host the distfile without an agreement
>>>> with Skype.  This means that someone who doesn't currently have the
>>>> Skype distfile cannot install the Skype port.
>>>>
>>>> I believe work is underway to support the currently available version
>>>> of Skype.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Ok, from my understanding it wouldn't be the first time a port distfile is
>> not (easily) available yet the port itself works if one can get the
>> distfile.  And it's very easy to search successfully the interwebs for this
>> particular distfile.  In such a case I see no reason to remove the port if
>> it works (under condition one gets the distfile).  I myself have it (and I
>> even host it privately).  And reading mailing lists reveals there are many
>> people using the port.
>>>
>>
>> If one is capable of finding a distfile it's a trivial addition to find the
>> port.
>>
>> Rather than having defective ports in the tree, perhaps you could host the
>> Skype shar? With a decent title it'll probably show up early enough on a
>> Google search.
>
> Nah, please let's keep the port in and have it issue download hints
> similar to the Java port (if legally possible)

which it's not without being on dodgy ground

> or otherwise issue a hint
> that the port is kept for the benefit of those who happen to have a
> distfile.

Which is what, thirty people?

Chris