On Mar 6, 2015, at 1:39 PM, Mike Meyer <m...@mired.org> wrote: > After a discussion on another list, I'm wondering if anyone has ever done > anything to verify that the license requirements of the dependencies of a > package (I don't know of any licenses that would cause problems for a port, > as those don't involve distribution of derived works in the form of a > binary) are actually met?
Yes. It is considered the responsibility of the port maintainer to set NO_PACKAGE, RESTRICTED, etc appropriately for the default port options so that the precompiled packages provided by the FreeBSD project are legally OK to redistribute. If an end-user chooses to select different dependencies, then they are responsible for those choices. > For instance, a port licensed under the EPL that is statically linked with a > GPL'ed library would produce a binary that couldn't be legally distributed. That is a concern, but end-users of the ports can still compile the two together and use the result, even if they cannot legally redistribute the combination to others. Regards, -- -Chuck _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
