Adding licensing info to my ports: some questions

[Eitan Adler]

2012/1/16 Nikola Lečić <nikola.lecic at anthesphoria.net>:
> On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 08:14:57PM -0500
>  in <CAF6rxg=N1OcJOyfg40K8FkuzbtmS8s_R8v7VCLOCapzfmWQAtQ at mail.gmail.com>
>  Eitan Adler <lists at eitanadler.com> wrote:
>
>> 2012/1/16 Nikola Lečić <nikola.lecic at anthesphoria.net>:
> [...]
>> > 3) Intentionally no difference between 2- and 3-clause BSD?
>>
>> I hope not. We should probably have a BSD2, BSD3, and BSD4 license.
>> For now mark it with a comment (or offer a patch to the db file too)
>
> Ok. What should happen with existing BSD in that case?

Leave it (cause some ports/configurations might break) but deprecate it.
Note that I am not on portmgr ;)

> I see, but does 'multi' applies to distfile which is just downloaded
> and unzipped or to installed files (and eo ipso to the FreeBSD
> package)?
>
> Anyway, it wasn't clear from the bsd.licenses.mk that we should use
> 'multi' in situations of 'any later version'. This means that all
> licensing info of eg. GPL2+ ports must be updated when GPL4 appears...

I am not certain about this.

>> Putting something in the Public Domain doesn't work in any meaningful
>> sense and is not a license.
>
> converters/base64 is public domain (see COPYING from its distfile).
> Do you mean that Public Domain shouldn't be added to the licenses
> database? NetBSD has it.

This list is the wrong location to discuss this issue so any followup
should happen off-list.


-- 
Eitan Adler