pkg-fallout: License not correctly defined: defining both LICENSE_FILE and LICENSE_TEXT is not allowed

[Chris]

On 2021-05-14 14:19, Christoph Moench-Tegeder wrote:
> ## Chris (portmaster at bsdforge.com):
> 
>> >  but the way it currently interacts
>> > with your port is not that fine: in the very least, it overwrites
>> > your LICENSE variables, which cannot be your intention. (Try
>> > "make -V LICENSE" in kde-icons-nuovoext2).
>> Sorry. My bad. LGPL3 is now included in the current LICENSE Templates.
>> So LICENSE_FILE is redundant && pkg-fallout (the ports framework) was
>> trying to use a "clue bat" to tell me so. ;-)
> 
> Absolutely not. Due to the included file, your port has not set
> the LICENSE to "LGPL3" but to "theme". That is a severe problem,
> you're not allowed to just put another license on that port. It's
> also not "look at the Makefile, the intention is clear": the
> LICENSE field ends up in the package, and there's no weaseling
> around the problem.
> Code bugs may be annoying, but "wrong license" is a mistake with
> potential to awaken the lawyers. Fix it.
I'm confused by your reply.
The problem I'm addressing in this case; is that the following as
*always* worked for licenses which carried a copy in
${WRKSRC}/LICENSE_NAME:

LICENSE=	LICENSE_TYPE
LICENSE_FILE=	${WRKSRC}/LICENSE_NAME

however. I've recently been plagued with complaints from pkg-fallout:

===>  License not correctly defined: defining both LICENSE_FILE and 
LICENSE_TEXT is not allowed
make: exec(exit) failed (No such file or directory)
*** Error code 1

When using that strategy. Sure enough; when performing a make test
on the problem port. I get roughly the same ERROR. Curious I thought.
Something in the ports framework must have changed. fe;

LICENSE=	LGPL3
LICENSE_FILE=	${WRKSRC}/COPYING

fails. EVEN though the file ${WRKSRC}/COPYING exists.
ALSO; LICENSE_FILE *and* LICENSE_TEXT are not BOTH defined, as stated
in the ERROR output.

Removing LICENSE_FILE returns; no problems with port.

So there you have it. The long version. :-)

> you're not allowed to just put another license on that port.
I'm not. It's a verbatim LGPL3 port && license as reported
within the port' source. :-)

> Code bugs may be annoying, but "wrong license" is a mistake with
> potential to awaken the lawyers.
I'm well versed in law, and I've performed nothing contrary to the
ports' source' intent. :-)

--Chris

> 
> Regards,
> Christoph