LPPL10 license consequences intended? (arabic/arabtex)
freebsd.contact at marino.st
Sat Mar 29 11:01:44 UTC 2014
On 3/29/2014 11:48, Chris Rees wrote:
> On , John Marino wrote:
>> This licensing topic is actually kind of a big mess that nobody seems to
>> be leading, and it's not even clear if missing licenses is a problem.
>> What's the policy? It would be better to disable the entire framework
>> than continue with this half-support.
> The policy on the licensing framework is that it was submitted by a GSoC
> student who has disappeared, and tabthorpe was the only one to step up
> and take care of the "mess".
> Unfortunately that's the case with a lot of stuff here-- someone drops
> something, someone else generously picks it up and gets flak for
> historical issues, as well as not being able to devote 110% of their
> time to it.
Ok, Chris, but that is not what happened here. I noted that tabthorpe
committed a license PR without changes 3 years ago and basically from
courtesy I offered that he take the first look. He wasn't getting any
flak for making a mistake. He also could have said, "no thanks"
which, while disappointing, is his prerogative. The problem was that
the offer put the topic in tabthorpe's court and without response the
topic died. So the issue isn't lack of action, it's lack of response I
 It hasn't even fully been established that LPP10 is actually defined
incorrectly although it leaning that way
> If you're interested in the license framework, PLEASE fix it up!
That is just the thing, I'm not pro-license framework. I support it
because it seems that ports wants it, but if you leave it to me, I'd
remove all package-blocking capability and state publicly that LICENSE
is a best guess, a courtesy, and not legally binding in any way (and
FreeBSD isn't legally responsible in any way). e.g. FYI, AS-IS, no guaranty
I am not the person you want leading the license framework if you are a
More information about the freebsd-ports