Hi,
I have a question in relation to the FreeBSD license framework and how
to define a port with distribution restrictions. The port in question is
devel/vasm port.
The legal section of documentation (1.2) for this port is at:
http://sun.hasenbraten.de/vasm/release/vasm.html
It is not clear
On 9/3/2013 13:42, Bryan Drewery wrote:
>>
>> My stand on it is that I don't care enough to be a beta-tester for
>> it and that I'll pick up the practice, once it's described in the
>> Porters' Handbook. Which it isn't. Why is that?
>>
>
> A lot of things are not. It's not due to the status of a f
On 9/3/2013 4:56 AM, Dominic Fandrey wrote:
> A lot of maintainers seem to have tested the license framework and
> recently a committer even added license information while committing
> one of my updates.
All ports should have a LICENSE line.
>
> My stand on it is that I don'
A lot of maintainers seem to have tested the license framework and
recently a committer even added license information while committing
one of my updates.
My stand on it is that I don't care enough to be a beta-tester for
it and that I'll pick up the practice, once it's described
I'm just trying to get my head around the license framework.
Is it supposed to be a means for a sysadmin to control what licensed
software is installed? Or is it more than that?
If it is more than that, why would one need to install a license from
the framework if the software usually h
he license framework be? Looks like nobody really seems to care
(enough).
Will it remain a legally incorrect and unreliable stuff? Then, there is no
need to actually care about it and the whole license framework is pretty
much useless in a legal sense. But that must be stated explicitly.
Or shoul
he license framework be? Looks like nobody really seems to care
(enough).
Will it remain a legally incorrect and unreliable stuff? Then, there is no
need to actually care about it and the whole license framework is pretty
much useless in a legal sense. But that must be stated explicitly.
Or shoul
On Tue June 15 2010 23:22:35 Wesley Shields wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 02:46:27AM +0200, Marco Bröder wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I know the ports license framework is very new and not mature yet.
> >
> > But it is not very useful in its current state, bec
On 06/16/2010 16:06, Dominic Fandrey wrote:
> On 15/06/2010 02:46, Marco Bröder wrote:
>> BSD-2-clause# Simplified BSD License
>> BSD-3-clause# Modified or New BSD License
>> BSD-4-clause# Original BSD License
>
> Just a side note, am I the only one using a single clause variant
> of t
;
We already have a mechanism to prevent distribution distfiles and
packages on our mirrors with the current NO_CDROM, RESTRICTED and
NO_PACKAGE flags. The license framework is ment to make these more
finegrained and give endusers a better handle to avoid using specific
licenses. As you say, this do
On 15/06/2010 02:46, Marco Bröder wrote:
> BSD-2-clause# Simplified BSD License
> BSD-3-clause# Modified or New BSD License
> BSD-4-clause# Original BSD License
Just a side note, am I the only one using a single clause variant
of the BSDL? I really don't give a damn what people do with
On Tue, 2010-06-15 at 08:21 +0100, Matthew Seaman wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 15/06/2010 07:46:27, Eric wrote:
> > It would seem from reading the various posting that the two missing features
> > are some sort of clean way of saying "this license or higher" and
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 02:46:27AM +0200, Marco Br??der wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I know the ports license framework is very new and not mature yet.
>
> But it is not very useful in its current state, because several
> popular licenses are missing and some license foo is not right /
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 1:39 PM, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 1:29 PM, Marco Bröder wrote:
>> On Tue June 15 2010 09:10:49 Janne Snabb wrote:
>>> As a previous poster pointed out, I also think that the different
>>> BSD licences should be separated.
>>
>> Yes, they really are d
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 1:29 PM, Marco Bröder wrote:
> On Tue June 15 2010 09:10:49 Janne Snabb wrote:
>> As a previous poster pointed out, I also think that the different
>> BSD licences should be separated.
>
> Yes, they really are different licenses.
The BSD license has evolved over time. Comp
On Tue June 15 2010 09:10:49 Janne Snabb wrote:
> As a previous poster pointed out, I also think that the different
> BSD licences should be separated.
Yes, they really are different licenses.
Who else should it know better than the FreeBSD Project (and NetBSD, OpenBSD,
DragonflyBSD, ...)? ;-)
On Tue June 15 2010 04:03:08 Philip M. Gollucci wrote:
> On 06/15/10 00:46, Marco Bröder wrote:
> > I find it especially important to have a expression for 'version X or any
> > later version' (for example 'LGPLv2+'), since the following dummy example
> > is
>
> > not adequate:
> A very good idea,
On Tue, 2010-06-15 at 08:21 +0100, Matthew Seaman wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 15/06/2010 07:46:27, Eric wrote:
> > It would seem from reading the various posting that the two missing features
> > are some sort of clean way of saying "this license or higher" and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 15/06/2010 07:46:27, Eric wrote:
> It would seem from reading the various posting that the two missing features
> are some sort of clean way of saying "this license or higher" and possibly
> something along the lines of "like this licence" for cases
On Mon, 14 Jun 2010, Chuck Swiger wrote:
Where I live, someone without a legal degree cannot offer legal
advice
[..]
It might also not be a bad idea to not display anything about
licensing until a human enables some Makefile switch which acknowledges
the limitations of the system (ie, license
> From: "Philip M. Gollucci"
> Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 02:03:08 +
>
> On 06/15/10 00:46, Marco Bröder wrote:
>> I find it especially important to have a expression for 'version X or any
>> later version' (for example 'LGPLv2+'), since the following dummy example is
>> not adequate:
> A very go
On Jun 14, 2010, at 8:30 PM, Warren Block wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Jun 2010, Marco Br?der wrote:
> But it is not very useful in its current state, because several popular
>> licenses are missing and some license foo is not right / specific enough to
>> be
>> considered legally correct (for example ther
On Tue, 15 Jun 2010, Marco Br?der wrote:
But it is not very useful in its current state, because several popular
licenses are missing and some license foo is not right / specific enough to be
considered legally correct (for example there is no 'one BSD License', there
are at least three of them,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 06/15/10 00:46, Marco Bröder wrote:
> I find it especially important to have a expression for 'version X or any
> later version' (for example 'LGPLv2+'), since the following dummy example is
> not adequate:
A very good idea, but not neccessarily t
Hello,
I know the ports license framework is very new and not mature yet.
But it is not very useful in its current state, because several popular
licenses are missing and some license foo is not right / specific enough to be
considered legally correct (for example there is no 'one BSD Li
25 matches
Mail list logo
