Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2016 21:15:19 +1000 From: Kubilay Kocak <koobs@FreeBSD.org> To: Pietro Cerutti <gahr@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@freebsd.org>, Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@freebsd.org>, Dmitry Marakasov <amdmi3@freebsd.org>, ports-committers@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, svn-ports-head@freebsd.org, owner-ports-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r421549 - in head: . Mk Message-ID: <6bf22256-12e6-018b-7fa9-b1b3c32aae70@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <81b654069a4522c68711057339151841@gahr.ch> References: <201609081315.u88DF6vL044982@repo.freebsd.org> <190e2ef5-0f8c-efc3-bca1-7e5b541d3733@FreeBSD.org> <20160909062630.hofrsvjajt2wcel4@ivaldir.etoilebsd.net> <99cd3ec3-da27-f989-97c2-c009ea80c37c@FreeBSD.org> <20160909083558.GA79819@FreeBSD.org> <67ffba7b-f2ae-c0b0-b3d7-3b854e74cd85@FreeBSD.org> <81b654069a4522c68711057339151841@gahr.ch>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 9/09/2016 8:06 PM, Pietro Cerutti wrote: > On 2016-09-09 10:57, Kubilay Kocak wrote: >> On 9/09/2016 6:35 PM, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote: >>> On Fri, Sep 09, 2016 at 06:29:33PM +1000, Kubilay Kocak wrote: >>>> On 9/09/2016 4:26 PM, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: >>>>> In both case that means there is NO license and then we >>>>> should not distribute them at all. >>>> >>>> There are cases where software has no license, the author says >>>> so, but they mean, and/or say 'free to do with what you >>>> please'. This is neither NONE, nor undefined (in terms of the >>>> 'terms'), nor PD, nor 'empty(LICENSE)'. >>> >>> That's why I prefer something along >>> UNCLEAR/MOOT/VAGUE/CONTROVERSIAL/etc. to cover all those "weird" >>> cases and be done with it. >>> >>> ./danfe >>> >> >> And precisely why UNDEFINED was suggested over NONE. >> >> The reason for UNDEFINED over others? Not as prescriptive or >> subjective. More inclusive (better coverage/utility). > > Which is likely the problem here. As this thread clearly shows, the > lack of an explicit license could mean different things depending on > different factors, including i) who you're talking to, ii) the > country where the software was developed or resides, iii) others > UNKNOWN to me. Ultimately, a court could state the exact meaning of > the lack of a license, but we don't want to get there for every > single piece of abandonware that's not declaring a license. UNDEFINED > is wrong. The license could well be defined by laws even if not > defined in the source code. Indeed. I like this argument, both in terms of legal definitions, and that UNDEFINED is still prescriptive, though not as much as NONE. > The fact that we do not know what the lack of license means makes me > feel safer with UNKNOWN than with UNDEFINED. +1 UNKNOWN also sounds like it means what it does (in this implementation) and both of the following still make sense: LICENSE=UNKNOWN LICENCE_PERMS=FOO BAR Result: packaged and distributed and LICENSE=UNKNOWN (no known 'terms') Result: no package or code (re)distribution (no LICENSE_PERMS) The latter would be the one that could replace the empty(LICENSE) cases we have now. ./koobs
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?6bf22256-12e6-018b-7fa9-b1b3c32aae70>