2012/1/16 Nikola Lečić <nikola.le...@anthesphoria.net>: > On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 08:14:57PM -0500 > in <CAF6rxg=n1ocjoyfg40k8fkuzbtms8s_r8v7vclocapzfmwq...@mail.gmail.com> > Eitan Adler <li...@eitanadler.com> wrote: > >> 2012/1/16 Nikola Lečić <nikola.le...@anthesphoria.net>: > [...] >> > 3) Intentionally no difference between 2- and 3-clause BSD? >> >> I hope not. We should probably have a BSD2, BSD3, and BSD4 license. >> For now mark it with a comment (or offer a patch to the db file too) > > Ok. What should happen with existing BSD in that case?
Leave it (cause some ports/configurations might break) but deprecate it. Note that I am not on portmgr ;) > I see, but does 'multi' applies to distfile which is just downloaded > and unzipped or to installed files (and eo ipso to the FreeBSD > package)? > > Anyway, it wasn't clear from the bsd.licenses.mk that we should use > 'multi' in situations of 'any later version'. This means that all > licensing info of eg. GPL2+ ports must be updated when GPL4 appears... I am not certain about this. >> Putting something in the Public Domain doesn't work in any meaningful >> sense and is not a license. > > converters/base64 is public domain (see COPYING from its distfile). > Do you mean that Public Domain shouldn't be added to the licenses > database? NetBSD has it. This list is the wrong location to discuss this issue so any followup should happen off-list. -- Eitan Adler _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
