LPPL10 license consequences intended? (arabic/arabtex)

[Chris Rees]

On 29 March 2014 11:01:04 GMT+00:00, John Marino <freebsd.contact at marino.st> wrote:
>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[1].  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
>guess.
>
>[1] 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
>license nut.
>

I think you may have success as far as dports is concerned if you just disable it your end- there is a knob for that.

If you think it's inherently bad, you should probably do so-- you wouldn't hear complaints from dports users if you told them.

Chris

-- 
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.