Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2014 13:25:15 +0000 From: Chris Rees <crees@bayofrum.net> To: marino@freebsd.org, John Marino <freebsd.contact@marino.st>, Chris Rees <crees@FreeBSD.org>, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: LPPL10 license consequences intended? (arabic/arabtex) Message-ID: <1f96e50b-45ad-4755-a0c1-e33177f0d08a@email.android.com> In-Reply-To: <5336A7F0.6040104@marino.st> References: <532DC88A.7010104@marino.st> <CAN6yY1uf67ogKyqNO025%2BpcU21PmFYCiQULd4z6TsaYbFma3_A@mail.gmail.com> <532DFDB2.1090200@cyberleo.net> <CAN6yY1t0X%2BYE9s10wi0spV7_H4BDPks%2BC_UwXdZsd9Wnbh_%2BFA@mail.gmail.com> <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> <fe7ce360a17a369c3d5f6e1969dcd3a2@www.bayofrum.net> <5336A7F0.6040104@marino.st>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 29 March 2014 11:01:04 GMT+00:00, John Marino <freebsd.contact@marino.st> 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.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1f96e50b-45ad-4755-a0c1-e33177f0d08a>