Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2004 14:31:28 -0700 From: Scott Long <scottl@freebsd.org> To: Trevor Johnson <trevor@jpj.net> Cc: cvs-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports CHANGES UPDATING ports/Mk bsd.port.mk ports/archivers/stuffit Makefile ports/astro/linux-setiathome Makefile Message-ID: <41D5C530.4050903@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20041231152001.R12851@blues.jpj.net> References: <200412311824.iBVIOAhM026389@repoman.freebsd.org> <20041231152001.R12851@blues.jpj.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Trevor Johnson wrote: >>netchild 2004-12-31 18:24:10 UTC >> > > I object both to this patch and to the way it was handled. > > When someone offers software under a restrictive licence, we mustn't > simply ignore the restrictions, as this patch would have us do. That puts > the project in a bad light. Although I highly doubt that the authors of, > for example, the GNU libc, would seek legal redress, this patch gives them > a reason. Last year I wanted to make some provision for packaging the > linux_base-8 port in a way that would satisfy the licence, but I was > blocked by portmgr (my request for a repo copy to that end was denied). > When obrien raised the issue again recently in mail to me and to portmgr, > I answered him but there was no response from portmgr, and certainly no > intimation that they were going to do this. > > Alexander Leidinger asked me to give up maintenance of numerous ports, and > I made it clear that I did not want to do so. It isn't right that, after > creating them and working on them over the years, my maintainership be > just taken away by portmgr's fiat. I find it extremely discouraging. > > I also have some technical objections to this patch but I don't want to > lose focus, and I haven't had a chance to look at what it does yet. The > patch as presented to me was quite different: > <URL:http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=70539>. > > The original conception of portmgr was that it would be a group that would > maintain the bsd.port.mk file. It proved inadequate at that, yet it has > since been granted more and more sweeping powers. Core, please reconsider > its charter. I assume that you are talking about this part, yes? > - remove RESTRICTED from some GPL licensed ports, even when we only > distribute binaries, we get them from official linux sites, so > anyone can grab them there if he needs to > FWIW, I brought up similar concerns with Kris a few days ago, and it was discussed further in private with myself, him, and Warner. I'm still very concerned about it and I don't think that a real resolution was reached. This was something that was going to be brought up in an upcoming concall, but that obviously hasn't happened yet. It's likely that we need a real legal opinion here, not just idle conjecture. But yes, this is on the radar and I hope to have a resolution soon. Scott
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?41D5C530.4050903>