Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 16 Sep 2004 10:56:03 +0200
From:      Volker Stolz <stolz@i2.informatik.rwth-aachen.de>
To:        ports@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Drop of portindex
Message-ID:  <20040916085603.GA96264@i2.informatik.rwth-aachen.de>
In-Reply-To: <p0611041cbd6e58d22b84@[128.113.24.47]>
References:  <20040915093120.3067472e@dolphin.local.net> <3.0.5.32.20040915104438.01f2dda0@sage-american.com> <200409151833.55714.michaelnottebrock@gmx.net> <p0611041cbd6e58d22b84@[128.113.24.47]>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In gmane.os.freebsd.devel.ports, you wrote:
> Unfortunately, the "we" in that last paragraph includes a lot of
> people, including many people who are not the official developers
> of "the ports collection".  Perhaps this means that the ports
> collection will need to police the licenses of anything which
> claims to operate on the ports collection, just to avoid this
> confusion.  I do not know what the best solution would be.

Speaking as a ports-committer, I already had one or two instances of new
submissions where I evtl. got the submission polished up to
commit-quality, but then decided to ditch my effort because I couldn't
make heads nor tails of the license (especially more so for non-native
speakers). Another example while looking for advice was: "The license
was good enough for NetBSD, so it should be sufficient for us".
Indeed not a favourable situation.
-- 
http://www-i2.informatik.rwth-aachen.de/stolz/ *** PGP *** S/MIME
Two more months.



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040916085603.GA96264>