On 5/25/2010 11:23 PM, Alejandro Pulver wrote:
On 5/25/2010 4:06 AM, Garrett Cooper wrote:
Thanks as well Alejandro for the hard work.
Just out of curiosity, was any exploration done with existing work in
the NetBSD side as far as existing licenses or naming schemes are
concerned? I ask because if it seems logical, I would go with some of
the names that they've established, because they're down to a fairly
good level of granularity (even between the different BSDL versions).
No, but it's a good idea. I'll check it out before importing licenses.
One of the main differences between their version and ours is that they
separate licensing information from redistribution restrictions.
According to:
http://www.netbsd.org/docs/pkgsrc/fixes.html#handling-licenses
The port developer should set both LICENSE (only one) and restrictions
(NO_{BIN,SRC}_ON_{FTP,CDROM}) independently.
But our version was intended to replace RESTRICTED, NO_CDROM, NO_PACKAGE
(which is ambiguous as sometimes it's not used for redistribution
restrictions) and ports/LEGAL (may be automatically generated if
desired, after ports are converted).
We also gain a little more flexibility (the four possible combinations).
If desired, restriction names could be matched to their implementation
(pkg -> bin, dist -> src, etc).
Currently pkgsrc has 152 license files in /usr/ports/licenses. I think
it should be OK to start from there (for the ones needed).
I guess in practice most ports would use LICENSE=something and don't
bother with other variables, but for restricted ports or complicated
cases they may prove useful (specially with FOSSology, after the next
version is released).
Regards,
Ale
_______________________________________________
cvs-all@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "cvs-all-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
