From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Dec 31 21:32:56 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2D1516A4CE; Fri, 31 Dec 2004 21:32:56 +0000 (GMT) Received: from pooker.samsco.org (pooker.samsco.org [168.103.85.57]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 284E543D58; Fri, 31 Dec 2004 21:32:56 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from scottl@freebsd.org) Received: from [192.168.254.11] (junior-wifi.samsco.home [192.168.254.11]) (authenticated bits=0) by pooker.samsco.org (8.12.11/8.12.10) with ESMTP id iBVLZuGe027249; Fri, 31 Dec 2004 14:35:56 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from scottl@freebsd.org) Message-ID: <41D5C530.4050903@freebsd.org> Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2004 14:31:28 -0700 From: Scott Long User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040929 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Trevor Johnson References: <200412311824.iBVIOAhM026389@repoman.freebsd.org> <20041231152001.R12851@blues.jpj.net> In-Reply-To: <20041231152001.R12851@blues.jpj.net> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.86.1.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.2 required=3.8 tests=SUBJ_HAS_SPACES, SUBJ_HAS_UNIQ_ID autolearn=no version=2.63 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on pooker.samsco.org cc: Alexander Leidinger cc: core@freebsd.org cc: cvs-all@freebsd.org cc: ports-committers@freebsd.org cc: portmgr@freebsd.org 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 X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the entire tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2004 21:32:56 -0000 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: > . > > 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