From owner-freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Aug 25 14:19:18 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BA609BE7 for ; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 14:19:18 +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 A092430C4 for ; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 14:19:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bugs.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.118]) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id s7PEJIMA088248 for ; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 14:19:18 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 14:19:18 +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: Issue Resolved 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 14:19:18 -0000 https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187926 --- Comment #16 from John Marino --- (In reply to Adam Weinberger from comment #15) > (In reply to John Marino from comment #14) > > line 75? > > I didn't say it was great. > > It's definitely there, but it just says the variable *exists*, not what it > does. Last I remember hearing on the topic, it was decided that merely > setting LICENSE was insufficient, because if any word was changed from the > canonical license then we were violating terms by not distributing the > provided license. That came from mat@ and a lot of people pushed back on the idea that LICENCE_FILE is required unconditionally. The original thinking what that *if* the license matched word for word what ports provided, just the LICENSE= definition was enough. Of course, the license framework is a red-headed stepchild that half of us just want to go away because nobody loves it, so there's no definitive answer. > So my understanding was that, to comply with the terms of the licenses, the > license had to be distributed with the packaged binary. if LICENSE= is defined, the license is distributed with the binary. The question is where there text comes from the ports templates or from the distribution tarball (or from the ports Makefile with LICENSE_TEXT=) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.