Date: Sun, 25 May 2003 16:06:17 -0700 From: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> To: Christian Weisgerber <naddy@mips.inka.de> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: License issues (e.g. mod_throttle, mod_watch) Message-ID: <20030525230617.GA24132@rot13.obsecurity.org> In-Reply-To: <baqrft$1uud$1@kemoauc.mips.inka.de> References: <baqrft$1uud$1@kemoauc.mips.inka.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--vtzGhvizbBRQ85DL Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, May 25, 2003 at 04:37:17PM +0000, Christian Weisgerber wrote: > What is our policy here? Do we want to strictly follow the authors' > licenses or is everything that is downloadable fair game? This is > not a rhetoric question. We should follow the authors' licenses carefully. You're correct that we don't collectively pay enough attention to this. > www/mod_throttle. This comes with a license so short I can quote it > in full: >=20 > This source distribution is made freely available and there is > no charge for its use, provided you retain this notice, disclaimers, > author's copyright, and credits. >=20 > Note that there is no mention of redistribution. That means > redistribution in any form is prohibited. Accordingly, this port > should be marked RESTRICTED. >=20 > www/mod_watch, by the same author. This has a more specific license, > see >=20 > http://www.snert.com/Software/mod_watch/ >=20 > Non-commercial redistribution of binaries is not permitted without > prior written consent. That means NO_PACKAGE. If the FreeBSD > project happens to have such permission and we don't care about > transitivity (do we?), then the limits on commercial redistribution > should still imply NO_CDROM. >=20 > I suspect a full-fledged license audit of the ports tree would turn > up a sizable number of problematic cases. Now, before I go out and > prod maintainers about individual cases I run into, I would like > to have some sort of consensus opinion or portmgr statement that > clarifies our stance on this. I would personally love it if you did some work on this. Kris --vtzGhvizbBRQ85DL Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE+0UxpWry0BWjoQKURAqVDAKC4OXzLhNXXR2c9Z/d8VDK3Pw6MagCfRRX7 iqnFWH8GWdEfkAE6UdtPTKE= =4mgE -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --vtzGhvizbBRQ85DL--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030525230617.GA24132>