From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Mar 29 13:25:34 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 51B21AA3; Sat, 29 Mar 2014 13:25:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mk-outboundfilter-5.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-outboundfilter-5.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.114.1]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34406A7; Sat, 29 Mar 2014 13:25:33 +0000 (UTC) X-Trace: 80800847/mk-outboundfilter-5.mail.uk.tiscali.com/PIPEX/$ON_NET_AUTH_ACCEPTED/pipex-temporary-group/81.170.77.156/None/crees@bayofrum.net X-SBRS: None X-RemoteIP: 81.170.77.156 X-IP-MAIL-FROM: crees@bayofrum.net X-SMTP-AUTH: bayofrum@uwclub.net X-MUA: K-9 Mail for Android X-IP-BHB: Once X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AlUGAEHJNlNRqk2c/2dsb2JhbABZgwaEHL96gRIXdIIlAQEBBCMPASMzCxgCAiYCAjkeBgESh32ubaJNF4EpiCcuhDABAVaCb4FJBJhOhjaLf4MwgXI X-IPAS-Result: AlUGAEHJNlNRqk2c/2dsb2JhbABZgwaEHL96gRIXdIIlAQEBBCMPASMzCxgCAiYCAjkeBgESh32ubaJNF4EpiCcuhDABAVaCb4FJBJhOhjaLf4MwgXI X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.97,756,1389744000"; d="scan'208";a="80800847" X-IP-Direction: OUT Received: from 81-170-77-156.dynamic.dsl.as9105.com (HELO pegasus.bayofrum.net) ([81.170.77.156]) by smtp.pipex.tiscali.co.uk with ESMTP; 29 Mar 2014 13:25:15 +0000 Received: from android-58098a8d81f27ad6.lan (unknown [84.93.191.234]) by pegasus.bayofrum.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9733F5A455; Sat, 29 Mar 2014 13:25:10 +0000 (GMT) User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android In-Reply-To: <5336A7F0.6040104@marino.st> References: <532DC88A.7010104@marino.st> <532DFDB2.1090200@cyberleo.net> <532ED19F.1090100@marino.st> <533541E5.6040003@marino.st> <20140329031431.GA21162@village.abthorpe.org> <533686CE.6040706@marino.st> <20140329101455.GA21319@lonesome.com> <5336A1B5.3080200@marino.st> <5336A7F0.6040104@marino.st> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Subject: Re: LPPL10 license consequences intended? (arabic/arabtex) From: Chris Rees Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2014 13:25:15 +0000 To: marino@freebsd.org, John Marino , Chris Rees , freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Message-ID: <1f96e50b-45ad-4755-a0c1-e33177f0d08a@email.android.com> X-bayofrum-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-bayofrum-MailScanner-ID: 9733F5A455.A045D X-bayofrum-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-bayofrum-MailScanner-From: crees@bayofrum.net X-Spam-Status: No X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2014 13:25:34 -0000 On 29 March 2014 11:01:04 GMT+00:00, John Marino wrote: >On 3/29/2014 11:48, Chris Rees wrote: >> On , John Marino wrote: >>> This licensing topic is actually kind of a big mess that nobody >seems to >>> be leading, and it's not even clear if missing licenses is a >problem. >>> What's the policy? It would be better to disable the entire >framework >>> than continue with this half-support. >> >> The policy on the licensing framework is that it was submitted by a >GSoC >> student who has disappeared, and tabthorpe was the only one to step >up >> and take care of the "mess". >> >> Unfortunately that's the case with a lot of stuff here-- someone >drops >> something, someone else generously picks it up and gets flak for >> historical issues, as well as not being able to devote 110% of their >> time to it. > >Ok, Chris, but that is not what happened here. I noted that tabthorpe >committed a license PR without changes 3 years ago and basically from >courtesy I offered that he take the first look. He wasn't getting any >flak for making a mistake[1]. He also could have said, "no thanks" >which, while disappointing, is his prerogative. The problem was that >the offer put the topic in tabthorpe's court and without response the >topic died. So the issue isn't lack of action, it's lack of response I >guess. > >[1] It hasn't even fully been established that LPP10 is actually >defined >incorrectly although it leaning that way > > >> If you're interested in the license framework, PLEASE fix it up! > >That is just the thing, I'm not pro-license framework. I support it >because it seems that ports wants it, but if you leave it to me, I'd >remove all package-blocking capability and state publicly that LICENSE >is a best guess, a courtesy, and not legally binding in any way (and >FreeBSD isn't legally responsible in any way). e.g. FYI, AS-IS, no >guaranty > >I am not the person you want leading the license framework if you are a >license nut. > I think you may have success as far as dports is concerned if you just disable it your end- there is a knob for that. If you think it's inherently bad, you should probably do so-- you wouldn't hear complaints from dports users if you told them. Chris -- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.