I'm working on adding LICENSE information to my ports, and have a few
questions. A lot of my ports are ISC products, and they have the
following: http://people.freebsd.org/~dougb/COPYRIGHT.txt
I also have dns/fpdns which has this:
http://people.freebsd.org/~dougb/LICENSE.txt which looks like
Dear porters,
This is just a reminder to please periodically check the list of
unbuildable ports at http://pointyhat.freebsd.org/errorlogs/ .
A list by MAINTAINER is
http://people.freebsd.org/~fenner/errorlogs/
so you can easily check the status of ports that you maintain. In
addition, the
On 06/14/10 04:48, Matthew Seaman wrote:
Even having replaced libassuan with libassuan-1, there still seems to be
a problem for some ports:
Yes, I fixed that shortly after the first update, thanks to QAT. :)
I had tested picking up the new dependency for building the port, but
didn't test
On 06/14/10 08:05, Ashish SHUKLA wrote:
Doug Barton writes:
[...]
Then there is security/libassuan which seems to be dual licensed under
GPLv3 and LGPLv2, did we ever decide how to handle that?
In one of the dual-licensed port's Makefile, I added:
#v+
LICENSE= GPLv3 LGPL3
On 06/14/10 09:59, Chuck Swiger wrote:
Hi--
On Jun 14, 2010, at 1:07 AM, Doug Barton wrote:
I'm working on adding LICENSE information to my ports, and have a
few questions. A lot of my ports are ISC products, and they have
the following: http://people.freebsd.org/~dougb/COPYRIGHT.txt
Yes,
Hi--
On Jun 14, 2010, at 4:10 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
On 06/14/10 09:59, Chuck Swiger wrote:
On Jun 14, 2010, at 1:07 AM, Doug Barton wrote:
I'm working on adding LICENSE information to my ports, and have a
few questions. A lot of my ports are ISC products, and they have
the following:
This LICENSE stuff is beginning to look more complex than it seemed at
first.
From this thread I gather that maintainers are going to have to do a bit
more than simply check a box. Here, for example, we see some well-known
licenses that don't readily identify themselves as such. How can a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 06/15/10 00:46, Marco Bröder wrote:
I find it especially important to have a expression for 'version X or any
later version' (for example 'LGPLv2+'), since the following dummy example is
not adequate:
A very good idea, but not neccessarily the
On Tue, 15 Jun 2010, Marco Br?der wrote:
But it is not very useful in its current state, because several popular
licenses are missing and some license foo is not right / specific enough to be
considered legally correct (for example there is no 'one BSD License', there
are at least three of
On Jun 14, 2010, at 8:30 PM, Warren Block wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jun 2010, Marco Br?der wrote:
But it is not very useful in its current state, because several popular
licenses are missing and some license foo is not right / specific enough to
be
considered legally correct (for example there is no
10 matches
Mail list logo
