From owner-freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Oct 22 08:40:17 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports-bugs@hub.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E489316A4B3 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 08:40:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [216.136.204.21]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 666EC43FAF for ; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 08:40:17 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (gnats@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h9MFeHFY023001 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 08:40:17 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h9MFeH5l023000; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 08:40:17 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from gnats) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 08:40:17 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200310221540.h9MFeH5l023000@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org From: Christian Weisgerber Subject: Re: ports/58250: [new port] www/mod_ntlm2: Implements NTLM authentication for Apache 2.0.x. X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports-bugs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: Christian Weisgerber List-Id: Ports bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 15:40:18 -0000 The following reply was made to PR ports/58250; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Christian Weisgerber To: sheepkiller@cultdeadsheep.org Cc: FreeBSD-gnats-submit@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ports/58250: [new port] www/mod_ntlm2: Implements NTLM authentication for Apache 2.0.x. Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 16:57:36 +0200 (CEST) In article <20031019193453.CCF8D43F75@mx1.FreeBSD.org> you write: > >Number: 58250 > >Category: ports > >Synopsis: [new port] www/mod_ntlm2: Implements NTLM > authentication for Apache 2.0.x. This has an ambiguous and incomplete license. I don't know what it is with these people writing apache modules. Why can't they just pick a standard license, e.g. the apache one? We're not allowed to modify it. Possibly we're not allowed to charge for distribution, i.e. we can't put it on CD. Overall, I think RESTRICTED is safest. -- Christian "naddy" Weisgerber naddy@mips.inka.de