LICENSE documentation

[Vitaly Magerya]

On 2016-09-14 10:19, Bob Eager wrote:
> This port never did have LICENSE, and it had been updated recently with
> no issues. However, I was told that "I don't see any mention of any
> kind of license in the package or on the site, so it should be
> LICENSE=  NONE. Note that without clear licensing terms it's impossible
> to legally use and redistribute the code."

My interpretation of this phrase is not that LICENSE variable is
mandatory (to which I would object on the basis that ports licensing
framework is vague, incomplete, and apparently used by noone too), but
rather that for the program to be freely distributable at all, it's
author(s) need to explicitly give their permission. That permission is
the license. If no license statement can be found in the sources or the
website, then no permission is given, and it's technically illegal for
anyone but the author(s) to use the software. If this is the case, I
suggest you to contact the authors, explain the situation, and ask them
to include some sort of a license statement -- we'll be forced to remove
the program from ports collection otherwise.