On 2024-04-12 09:25, Brooks Davis wrote:
On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 11:48:16PM -0700, Chris wrote:
I'm doing a full sweep of ports missing LICENSE and I continue
to have to jump through additional hurdles to represent the
BSD 1-Clause License in ports that use it. This has been puzzling
be for some time. So I'm asking. Why isn't it represented in
Mk/bsdlicenses.db.mk along with all the other BSD/MIT licenses?
Is there something in it that doesn't agree with the Foundations
policies? I've read the License Guide[1]. It's listed as OSI
approved[2] and it has an SPDX-License-Identifier[3]. Is this an
appropriate place to ask this question? Or is this something I
need to direct to core@ ?
It's uncommon (being AFACT an overly verbose version of MIT) so no one
added it?
It appears to be terse as compared to 2,3-clause && MIT.
Why not submit a patch instead of assuming a conspiracy?
Conspiracy? I don't follow. I'm just curious. As every other n-clause version
is in the bsdlicenses.db.mk file. It just figured, there must be something
wrong with the one-clause. I guess I'll whip up a patch.
Thanks for taking the time to reply, Brooks.
-- Brooks
--
--Chris Hutchinson
