Adding licensing info to my ports: some questions

Johan van Selst johans at
Wed Jan 18 09:34:18 UTC 2012

Nikola Lečić wrote:
> Anyway, it wasn't clear from the 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...

No, we should not use this. Not just because of the potential of having
to check and correct every port when GPLv4 appears. In my book,
"licenced under GPLv2 or GPLv3" is something fundamentally different
from "licenced under GPLv2 or any later version". The licence framework
should be able to make this distinction.

Another issue is that the licence infrastructure seems to be making
statements about the licence of an application, while the committers
only tend to look at individual source packages. What would be the
licence of an application whose source is published under BSD licence,
but that is linked with both GPv3 and OpenSSL-libraries?

I tend to agree with Doug and others that it is probably better to scrap
the entire idea. Making assertions about licences and what is accepted
is a hairy field, best left to experts.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 195 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :

More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list