From owner-svn-ports-head@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Mar 10 15:17:14 2014
Return-Path: <owner-svn-ports-head@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org
Received: by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 1033)
 id F263957D; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 15:17:14 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 15:17:14 +0000
From: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org>
To: Mathieu Arnold <mat@FreeBSD.org>
Subject: Re: svn commit: r345472 - in head/mail: mmr smtpfeed
Message-ID: <20140310151714.GD92282@FreeBSD.org>
References: <201402211451.s1LEpO30005480@svn.freebsd.org>
 <20140310141642.GA92282@FreeBSD.org>
 <724E420543C93474E8AD21FA@ogg.in.absolight.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <724E420543C93474E8AD21FA@ogg.in.absolight.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.22 (2013-10-16)
Cc: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org,
 Emanuel Haupt <ehaupt@FreeBSD.org>, ports-committers@freebsd.org
X-BeenThere: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: SVN commit messages for the ports tree for head
 <svn-ports-head.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/svn-ports-head>,
 <mailto:svn-ports-head-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/svn-ports-head/>
List-Post: <mailto:svn-ports-head@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:svn-ports-head-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-ports-head>,
 <mailto:svn-ports-head-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 15:17:15 -0000

On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 03:33:40PM +0100, Mathieu Arnold wrote:
> +--On 10 mars 2014 14:16:42 +0000 Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org>
> wrote:
> |>  LICENSE=	GPLv2
> |> +LICENSE_FILE=	${WRKSRC}/COPYING
> | 
> | But this on is GPLv2, no?
> 
> Yes, and ? I pointed that out for the BSD licenses, but it's true for most
> of them.
> The only reason for not having a LICENSE_FILE, would be the port only
> saying it's GPLv2 without shipping with the file.

Yes, this is a problem.  Essentially, license and copyright are not the
same thing: after all, GPL text tells users what they can do with a piece
of software, and in that sense, "GPLv2" alone is enough.  Having a bunch
of idential GPL boilerplates installed in the system is little different
from having a bunch of COPYING files installed that differ by only these
two lines.

I would by far prefer to leave LICENSE_FILE to non-standard *licenses*,
and augment our standard legal disclaimer for Ports Tree to say e.g. that
all 3rd-party (ported) software is copyrighted by their respective owners,
or something legally clean along these lines, to make GPLv2 alone legally
sufficient (IANAL, of course).

./danfe