Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 11:16:53 -0400 From: Eitan Adler <lists@eitanadler.com> To: Alex Dupre <ale@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-ports <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: LEGAL variable to capture generic issues Message-ID: <CAF6rxgkNxrNjv9fhABtT6GAJcfFV6S_RNaFKhwACCz_EHnuCOw@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <515063FD.1090008@FreeBSD.org> References: <CAF6rxgn1zN_5Gz_2Zrg7W==Q7SuLcXeWta0EE1Zkjq_jsPwtpg@mail.gmail.com> <515052EB.30409@FreeBSD.org> <CAF6rxg=DaYc_68AS-4-T6pJv1impWdB6Tv73m5Ld1W6nZuLQNg@mail.gmail.com> <51505A60.8070809@FreeBSD.org> <CAF6rxgnReoHLA0w6FAwB8KRnrx0dhCgTz%2B-avPtDODEvn3E%2B4w@mail.gmail.com> <51506111.5030402@FreeBSD.org> <CAF6rxgkv2STyoGuzB-FLr9FX3zgaZxCTZrb5Tu__e-sdRQwB1A@mail.gmail.com> <515063FD.1090008@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 25 March 2013 10:49, Alex Dupre <ale@freebsd.org> wrote: > Eitan Adler ha scritto: >> This is insufficient to include, say, line 212: >> >> "raknet-* devel/raknet Original license is >> Indy license, special authorization granted to provide RakNet under >> GPL v3" > > Ehmm, I could argue about the private email permission The email has been made public (see the files directory). > but if it's > listed in LEGAL it should be marked as RESTRICTED or NO_CDROM, otherwise > it should not listed there or NO_PACKAGE. However, merely being listed as NO_PACKAGE is insufficient as some NO_PACKAGE entries are not for legal issues. > (the LICENSE framework already says that > special authorization has been granted). It should also be listed in LEGAL in this case (there was a long discussion about this in the past). -- Eitan Adler
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAF6rxgkNxrNjv9fhABtT6GAJcfFV6S_RNaFKhwACCz_EHnuCOw>