Hi! > On 2016-09-14 10:19, Bob Eager wrote: > > This port never did have LICENSE, and it had been updated recently with > > no issues. However, I was told that "I don't see any mention of any > > kind of license in the package or on the site, so it should be > > LICENSE= NONE. Note that without clear licensing terms it's impossible > > to legally use and redistribute the code." > > My interpretation of this phrase is not that LICENSE variable is > mandatory (to which I would object on the basis that ports licensing > framework is vague, incomplete, and apparently used by noone too), but > rather that for the program to be freely distributable at all, it's > author(s) need to explicitly give their permission. That permission is > the license. If no license statement can be found in the sources or the > website, then no permission is given, and it's technically illegal for > anyone but the author(s) to use the software.
This interpretation is based on the hypothesis that the user is located in a country that has this kind of legal rule. This is not the case in every country, so your conclusion is not always valid. -- p...@opsec.eu +49 171 3101372 4 years to go ! _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"