svn commit: r421549 - in head: . Mk

[Kubilay Kocak]

On 8/09/2016 11:15 PM, Dmitry Marakasov wrote:
> Author: amdmi3 Date: Thu Sep  8 13:15:06 2016 New Revision: 421549 
> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/421549
> 
> Log: Add support added for LICENSE=NONE, use it when the port
> doesn't have cleanly defined licensing terms.  Note that without
> clean license allowing you to use and distribute the code it would be
> be illegal to do so in many jurisdictions, so for ports with NONE 
> license no distfiles or packages are distributed.

I'm glad this finally got added, though I'm worried that NONE is
ambiguous and will unnecessarily cause otherwise package'able /
distribute'able software to not be (inadvertently), and that None says
more than we want its behaviour to mean.

I truly do not intend to $bikeshed on the name, but are we saying:

That ports with no *explicit* license terms should not be
distributed/packaged by default?

If so, shouldn't empty(LICENSE) do this?

If all this does is avoid not having a whole bunch of existing ports not
be packaged because they don't yet have LICENSE set, let's fix that.
It's a great incentive to maintainers to get them added (explicitly). We
could then even upgrade adding LICENSE to a requirement for ports rather
than being optional (as it has been).

What if a piece of software doesn't have 'cleanly' (what is the actual
definition we should use?) defined license terms, but says/implies by
some other method that it is free to be distributed/packaged? Say for
example the software has debian/spec files in the sources but otherwise
says nothing.

Might LICENSE=UNDEFINED be a less ambiguous term/name for this "cant
distribute/package because we want to be legally safe" behaviour?

./koobs

> While here, fix trailing whitespace in CHANGES.
> 
> Approved by:	portmgr (bapt) Differential Revision:	D7816
> 
> Modified: head/CHANGES head/Mk/bsd.licenses.db.mk
> 
> Modified: head/CHANGES 
> ==============================================================================
>
> 
--- head/CHANGES	Thu Sep  8 13:03:13 2016	(r421548)
> +++ head/CHANGES	Thu Sep  8 13:15:06 2016	(r421549) @@ -10,6 +10,15
> @@ in the release notes and/or placed into
> 
> All ports committers are allowed to commit to this file.
> 
> +20160908: +AUTHOR: amdmi3 at FreeBSD.org + +  Support has been added
> for NONE license, use it when the port doesn't +  have cleanly
> defined licensing terms.  Note that without clean license +  allowing
> you to use and distribute the code it would be be illegal to do +  so
> in many jurisdictions, so for ports with NONE license no distfiles
> or +  packages are distributed. + 20160824: AUTHOR: mat at FreeBSD.org
> 
> @@ -39,16 +48,16 @@ AUTHOR: mat at FreeBSD.org 20160824: AUTHOR:
> kde at FreeBSD.org
> 
> -  A new USES file has been introduced: USES=kde:4, which replaces
> the old -  bsd.kde4.mk file in preparation for upcoming KDE
> Frameworks and Plasma5 -  ports. - -  Ports depending on KDE4 have to
> switch from +  A new USES file has been introduced: USES=kde:4, which
> replaces the old +  bsd.kde4.mk file in preparation for upcoming KDE
> Frameworks and Plasma5 +  ports. + +  Ports depending on KDE4 have to
> switch from USE_KDE4=foo bar -  to +  to USES=kde:4 USE_KDE=foo bar -
> and make sure to switch from using KDE4_PREFIX to the new name
> KDE_PREFIX +  and make sure to switch from using KDE4_PREFIX to the
> new name KDE_PREFIX in the Makefiles as well as plists.
> 
> 20160821:
> 
> Modified: head/Mk/bsd.licenses.db.mk 
> ==============================================================================
>
> 
--- head/Mk/bsd.licenses.db.mk	Thu Sep  8 13:03:13 2016	(r421548)
> +++ head/Mk/bsd.licenses.db.mk	Thu Sep  8 13:15:06 2016	(r421549) @@
> -63,6 +63,9 @@ _LICENSE_LIST+= ART10 ARTPERL10 ART20 # PHP family 
> _LICENSE_LIST+= PHP202 PHP30 PHP301
> 
> +# Extras +_LICENSE_LIST+= NONE + # List of groups (only names must
> be present)
> 
> _LICENSE_NAME_FSF=	Free Software Foundation Approved @@ -268,6
> +271,10 @@ _LICENSE_GROUPS_PSFL=	FSF GPL OSI _LICENSE_NAME_RUBY=	Ruby
> License _LICENSE_GROUPS_RUBY=	FSF
> 
> +_LICENSE_NAME_NONE=	No license specified +_LICENSE_GROUPS_NONE=	#
> empty +_LICENSE_PERMS_NONE=	auto-accept + _LICENSE_NAME_ZLIB=		zlib
> License _LICENSE_GROUPS_ZLIB=	GPL FSF OSI
> 
>