From owner-freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Aug 25 18:39:02 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports-bugs@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 17F47BF5 for ; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 18:39:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org (kenobi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::16:76]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F27483CA9 for ; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 18:39:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bugs.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.118]) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id s7PId1Gh089912 for ; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 18:39:01 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 187926] New port: devel/liballium - Tor pluggable transports utility library Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 18:39:02 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: AssignedTo X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: Ports Tree X-Bugzilla-Component: Individual Port(s) X-Bugzilla-Version: Latest X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: Affects Only Me X-Bugzilla-Who: marino@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Status: In Discussion X-Bugzilla-Priority: Normal X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bugzilla-URL: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports-bugs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: Ports bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 18:39:02 -0000 https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187926 --- Comment #29 from John Marino --- (In reply to Adam Weinberger from comment #28) > John, your hyperbolic statements here suggest that you're getting worked up. > I would ask that you take a step back and a deep breath and/or a nice > sandwich before posting more replies. I'm going to take the sandwich route > myself. I don't know how this is coming across, but I'm not worked up. The only logical conclusion to that we *must* include the license is that we *must* fix all the other violators too. I don't understand any other conclusion. > John, do whatever makes you happy. I stand behind the decision to install a > copy of the license, as specified by the terms of the license. Using the > combination of LICENSE, LICENSE_FILE, LICENSE_NAME, and LICENSE_PERMS is not > mandatory, but honouring the terms of the license is. Okay, let's get's portmgr involved to finally stand behind the licence framework and make some rules. > Fabian, I and the port are not inventing a licensing scheme. We are > installing a copy of the license. I ask that you re-read this, because this > whole thing is coming down to you objecting to installing a copy of the > license. Correction: my objection is *where* to install it. I have no objection to not installing it. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.