tn004713 for freebsd-ports@freebsd.org; Sat, 25 May 2024 19:31:17 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from david) Date: Sat, 25 May 2024 19:31:17 -0700 From: David Wolfskill To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: [Maintainer] Help determining proper LICENSE for x11-wm/piewm? Message-ID: List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-ports List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="+xDcGhn9T1bl6bvj" Content-Disposition: inline X-Spamd-Bar: ---- X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.18 / 15.00]; SIGNED_PGP(-2.00)[]; SUBJECT_ENDS_QUESTION(1.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-1.000]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.78)[-0.780]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+ip4:107.204.234.170]; MIME_GOOD(-0.20)[multipart/signed,text/plain]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_ONE(0.00)[1]; FREEFALL_USER(0.00)[david]; ASN(0.00)[asn:7018, ipnet:107.192.0.0/12, country:US]; MISSING_XM_UA(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+,1:+,2:~]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROMTLD(0.00)[]; MLMMJ_DEST(0.00)[freebsd-ports@freebsd.org]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[catwhisker.org]; TO_DN_NONE(0.00)[]; PREVIOUSLY_DELIVERED(0.00)[freebsd-ports@freebsd.org]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]; ARC_NA(0.00)[] X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4Vn2pP3134z4TVt --+xDcGhn9T1bl6bvj Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable A PR (https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D279111) has been opened with the intent to supply a suitable LICENSE for the x11-wm/piewm port. I am the maintainer of the port (out of self-defense, more than anything else); I am unable to determine what would make sense in this case: * The most recent "copyright" notice I find is from 1991 (U. of Maryland). * There also exist "copyright" notices from: * Don Hopkins (1989) * MIT (1989) * Solbourne Computer, Inc (1990) * Evans & Sutherland (1988) * HP & MIT (1989) * As best I can determine, there are no explicit "license" statements in the distribution. The creator of the PR suggested "MIT" for the license. While I can't claim that's wrong, I also can't claim it's right -- and my current impression is that claiming something that is, in fact, not correct in such a case is probably rather worse than making no claim at all. I am no expert in law (in general) or Intellectual Property law (in particular). I would like to do "what's right." Suggestions or advice? Thanks. Peace, david. I would like to do "what's right." Suggestions or advice? Thanks. Peace, david --=20 David H. Wolfskill david@catwhisker.org I will not be voting for a "unified reich" in the US. See https://www.catwhisker.org/~david/publickey.gpg for my public key. --+xDcGhn9T1bl6bvj Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iNUEARYKAH0WIQSTLzOSbomIK53fjFliipiWhXYx5QUCZlKe9V8UgAAAAAAuAChp c3N1ZXItZnByQG5vdGF0aW9ucy5vcGVucGdwLmZpZnRoaG9yc2VtYW4ubmV0OTMy RjMzOTI2RTg5ODgyQjlEREY4QzU5NjI4QTk4OTY4NTc2MzFFNQAKCRBiipiWhXYx 5X6yAP9RU+84V8Qd+STwezMdsKepBTaLt2ycv6WzK5ImKozSDgEA0UCEj9vug+0z RMGPJw3SB+OyOFo1lkjtHC0N/I0rGw4= =3mkz -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --+xDcGhn9T1bl6bvj--