Would software "for non-commercial use" be acceptable as a port?

[Nathan Whitehorn]

On 07/27/13 19:28, Peter Looyenga wrote:
> Hi gang,
>
> I've been professionally using FreeBSD for quite some time now (my company
> now uses 4 FreeBSD servers for web services) and during the implementation
> period I've become quite fascinated with the ports system. And this evening
> I suddenly had an idea, but I'm not too sure how feasible this idea is, so
> I'm hoping some of you guys would be willing to give me some suggestions or
> advice.
>
> I've been using a commercial software product for the past 4 years now; I
> started using it on Linux and nowadays I use it on Windows.
>
> The company behind this product provides several editions of their product,
> including a "community edition" which can be used free of charge but
> non-commercial use only. It does have some functional limitations which, in
> my opinion (but I am biased), aren't really intrusive. For example if you
> print some output you'll get a watermark too. Stuff like that.
>
> Even so; I strongly support this software. Like I said before I've been
> using it myself for the past 4 years (in all fairness: I got myself a
> commercial license too, which wasn't too expensive in my opinion) and even
> now I'm still quite passionate about this stuff.
>
>
> Now; I read that the ports collection provides a /truly/ free environment
> and doesn't shun entries which may not match the idea of free and/or open
> source software.
>
> So my question should be obvious: Would I be right to assume that the
> software product as I described it above could be a liable addition for the
> ports collection, or is there something I'm overlooking?
>
> Needless to say I'm obviously contacting the company behind it as well, I
> can say I'm in quite good terms with them, and nothing will be done without
> their explicit permission.
>
> But before I start on such an endeavor I'd really appreciate if you guys
> could confirm (or deny) if my plans are actually feasible?
>
> Am I right to conclude that the product, with the non-commercial clause I
> described above, could be a candidate for the ports collection or would the
> restriction be a huge obstacle?
>

We already have a lot of non-commercial-use software in ports (usually
marked "RESTRICTED" in the Makefile), so there certainly shouldn't be
any intrinsic difficulty there.
-Nathan