From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Mon Jul 27 13:18:49 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D48D9AAAC7 for ; Mon, 27 Jul 2015 13:18:49 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from vmagerya@gmail.com) Received: from mail-wi0-x22a.google.com (mail-wi0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AB3646C9; Mon, 27 Jul 2015 13:18:48 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from vmagerya@gmail.com) Received: by wicgb10 with SMTP id gb10so112028489wic.1; Mon, 27 Jul 2015 06:18:47 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=FUY2geQhG6/huui2C8MNSgRN8z4sceMYOTo6uHyrjTU=; b=AhR1yF6ZBkdtDPsbXVw9UxpgBnjEDom6s36bzJfP1NV5vLJE5kn5Yjiacw6KzWuUt1 5qZlVZgLXdl4cBCh2WK8wTAEyLv2b+fJ1BOFHPj2sujJoDGiQg9K4wE+EPkHFU+XUgHl u1rvpJOychRXf+la/fgigotUKbOLKo/EyHC7sTLcZcAOU/qXAGzf4ugRLtZOXe/ume1L Vm2pONNFgaA1Fkb7LO6VxoJ5mO9NjLaQLRCwJBaILoT49xy82ciIoh6QeRnpsln0p6sc i8cZgA+Iul/4rwbzyyOtSqmW7TpW96sQsEMfPymnQ6DGouCaqSRIg91sXxD0qGeoZ2TD g/ug== X-Received: by 10.194.52.105 with SMTP id s9mr54311571wjo.53.1438003127226; Mon, 27 Jul 2015 06:18:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [172.29.2.131] (altimet-gw.cs2.dp.wnet.ua. [217.20.178.249]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id ej5sm27860672wjd.22.2015.07.27.06.18.45 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 27 Jul 2015 06:18:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: help categorise license To: koobs@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org References: <201507270859.t6R8xSL3093427@mech-as222.men.bris.ac.uk> <55B5FBB3.8020805@gmail.com> <55B60D5B.8010902@FreeBSD.org> From: Vitaly Magerya Message-ID: <55B62FB5.3020702@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 16:18:45 +0300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <55B60D5B.8010902@FreeBSD.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 13:18:49 -0000 On 2015-07-27 13:52, Kubilay Kocak wrote: >> (Also note that our license framework should probably be scrapped >> entirely, because it is ambiguous and undocumented). > > Or it could just be made less ambiguous and documented. > > Otherwise, we should scrap entirely all other things that are also > ambiguous and undocumented. > > I imagine this will be a large list, and include large parts of the kernel. You're right, "ambiguous and undocumented" is not a great summary. My bad. I did not want to write an essay in an off-hand remark though, so let me clarify. What I mean is that it's not clear, not documented, and probably not widely agreed upon, what guarantees should the framework provide, or what use cases should it serve. Hence ambiguous and undocumented. If we where to resolve those questions, and document the result in the handbook, the complaint would be resolved. As an example: if a given port consists of a program, a few libraries, a set of documentation and a test suite -- all under different licenses (some of which are custom, some of which are dual), with the docs being optional, and the tests only used in the 'regression-test' target (so, not installed, but can be used during the build), what should we put into the LICENSE variable (there will be half a dozen of licenses in total)? For which users will the resulting LICENSE be helpful? Another example: if a port comes under a BSD license, but links with a GPL library, so that the resulting binary is necessarily GPL, what should the LICENSE be? Why? Next, let's say a port requires user to read and accept a license before installation (so, no auto-accept), should I use the license framework to present the said license to the user? As you can see, there are questions that arise in some of the trickier situations, with the end result that I neither know what to put into the LICENSE of my own ports, nor how to interpret the LICENSEs of other ports. I don't even have an understanding of what sort of a user benefits from my ports having a LICENSE. So, after 7 years (!) of waiting for official clarifications -- with no visible progress -- I think it is not surprising that I don't see a clarification to ever be made, and would prefer the framework removed.