License info Q

[A.J. "Fonz" van Werven]

Roger Marquis wrote:

> Perhaps easier than spending developer resources on administrative metadata
> perhaps an automated monthly email to port maintainers who have missing or
> inaccurate LICENSE= data, requesting this variable be added to makefiles and
> manifests, would improve things?

Yes and no. Yes because I agreee that licenses ought to be specified when-
ever possible and I try to do that for every port I maintain or adopt.
However, as previously remarked in this thread, licensing currently remains
one aspect of the ports framework that is largely undocumented. One has to
root around in /usr/ports/Mk for comments to find out more or less how it
works.

Case in point: open the Porter's Handbook, select "single HTML" and search
for the word "license". There are a few mentions of the word itself, but
in upper case the hit rate is exactly zero.

Now, I don't mind drafting a section for the Handbook based on what I can
find in /usr/ports/Mk *IF* someone who is familiar with the details of the
license framework is willing to a) check my work before I submit it to the
docs@ team and b) answer any questions I might stumble across in the
process.

If someone feels like overseeing, feel free to get in touch because I
really think this subject ought to be covered in the Porter's Handbook.

AvW

-- 
I'm not completely useless, I can be used as a bad example.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/attachments/20151125/e1dec6df/attachment.bin>