svn commit: r345472 - in head/mail: mmr smtpfeed

[Alexey Dokuchaev]

On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 03:33:40PM +0100, Mathieu Arnold wrote:
> +--On 10 mars 2014 14:16:42 +0000 Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe at FreeBSD.org>
> wrote:
> |>  LICENSE=	GPLv2
> |> +LICENSE_FILE=	${WRKSRC}/COPYING
> | 
> | But this on is GPLv2, no?
> 
> Yes, and ? I pointed that out for the BSD licenses, but it's true for most
> of them.
> The only reason for not having a LICENSE_FILE, would be the port only
> saying it's GPLv2 without shipping with the file.

Yes, this is a problem.  Essentially, license and copyright are not the
same thing: after all, GPL text tells users what they can do with a piece
of software, and in that sense, "GPLv2" alone is enough.  Having a bunch
of idential GPL boilerplates installed in the system is little different
from having a bunch of COPYING files installed that differ by only these
two lines.

I would by far prefer to leave LICENSE_FILE to non-standard *licenses*,
and augment our standard legal disclaimer for Ports Tree to say e.g. that
all 3rd-party (ported) software is copyrighted by their respective owners,
or something legally clean along these lines, to make GPLv2 alone legally
sufficient (IANAL, of course).

./danfe