From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG  Sat Mar 29 13:35:58 2014
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org
 [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A5A22D8E;
 Sat, 29 Mar 2014 13:35:58 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from shepard.synsport.net (mail.synsport.com [208.69.230.148])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (Client did not present a certificate)
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 108A717A;
 Sat, 29 Mar 2014 13:35:53 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [192.168.0.20] (unknown [130.255.19.191])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by shepard.synsport.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0B9B435C7;
 Sat, 29 Mar 2014 08:35:31 -0500 (CDT)
Message-ID: <5336CC13.9090205@marino.st>
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2014 14:35:15 +0100
From: John Marino <freebsd.contact@marino.st>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64;
 rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Chris Rees <crees@bayofrum.net>, Chris Rees <crees@FreeBSD.org>, 
 freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: LPPL10 license consequences intended? (arabic/arabtex)
References: <532DC88A.7010104@marino.st>
 <CAN6yY1uf67ogKyqNO025+pcU21PmFYCiQULd4z6TsaYbFma3_A@mail.gmail.com>
 <532DFDB2.1090200@cyberleo.net>
 <CAN6yY1t0X+YE9s10wi0spV7_H4BDPks+C_UwXdZsd9Wnbh_+FA@mail.gmail.com>
 <532ED19F.1090100@marino.st> <533541E5.6040003@marino.st>
 <20140329031431.GA21162@village.abthorpe.org> <533686CE.6040706@marino.st>
 <20140329101455.GA21319@lonesome.com> <5336A1B5.3080200@marino.st>
 <fe7ce360a17a369c3d5f6e1969dcd3a2@www.bayofrum.net>
 <5336A7F0.6040104@marino.st>
 <1f96e50b-45ad-4755-a0c1-e33177f0d08a@email.android.com>
In-Reply-To: <1f96e50b-45ad-4755-a0c1-e33177f0d08a@email.android.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
Reply-To: marino@freebsd.org
List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD <freebsd-ports.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-ports>,
 <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>,
 <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2014 13:35:58 -0000

On 3/29/2014 14:25, Chris Rees wrote:
> On 29 March 2014 11:01:04 GMT+00:00, John Marino
> <freebsd.contact@marino.st> wrote:

> I think you may have success as far as dports is concerned if you
> just disable it your end- there is a knob for that.
> 
> If you think it's inherently bad, you should probably do so-- you
> wouldn't hear complaints from dports users if you told them.

Yes, I obviously can override whatever I wish but sweeping issues under
the rug like this ultimately doesn't benefit me.  It's yet more more
"diff" that I have to maintain and have break on me.

Now -- will FreeBSD ports committers set all tex ports to LPPL* for
consistency and tell the FreeBSD users to build them from source as a
consequence?  I kind of think having no tex packages in binary form will
go over like a lead balloon so I'm not really seeing how your suggestion
benefits the FreeBSD community.

I was trying to help resolve the problem for everyone, not just DF.
John