Bug 218843
| Summary: | add WTFPL license to ports tree | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Ports & Packages | Reporter: | Dave Cottlehuber <dch> | ||||||||
| Component: | Ports Framework | Assignee: | Port Management Team <portmgr> | ||||||||
| Status: | Closed FIXED | ||||||||||
| Severity: | Affects Only Me | CC: | eadler, ports-bugs, reshadpatuck1, yuri | ||||||||
| Priority: | --- | Flags: | eadler:
maintainer-feedback-
eadler: maintainer-feedback- |
||||||||
| Version: | Latest | ||||||||||
| Hardware: | Any | ||||||||||
| OS: | Any | ||||||||||
| Bug Depends on: | |||||||||||
| Bug Blocks: | 218844 | ||||||||||
| Attachments: |
|
||||||||||
The _LICENSE_GROUPS line looks wrong Created attachment 182065 [details]
v2 patch fixes _LICENSE_GROUPS and uses UNIX line endings on WTFPL2 file
thanks antoine@ for catching my error.
I also see in git that the added WTFPL2 is a DOS line ending file from the website.
I am not familiar with svn but I think this patch has the UNIX version of it now.
LICENSE_GROUPS is still wrong. Comment on attachment 182065 [details] v2 patch fixes _LICENSE_GROUPS and uses UNIX line endings on WTFPL2 file >Index: Mk/bsd.licenses.db.mk >=================================================================== >--- Mk/bsd.licenses.db.mk (revision 439342) >+++ Mk/bsd.licenses.db.mk (working copy) >@@ -41,7 +41,7 @@ > > _LICENSE_LIST= BSL CDDL CPAL-1.0 ClArtistic EPL GFDL GMGPL \ > ISCL MIT MPL NCSA OFL10 OFL11 OWL OpenSSL PD PSFL PostgreSQL \ >- RUBY ZLIB ZPL21 >+ RUBY WTFPL2 ZLIB ZPL21 > > # GNU family > _LICENSE_LIST+= AGPLv3 GPLv1 GPLv2 GPLv3 GPLv3RLE LGPL20 LGPL21 LGPL3 >@@ -385,6 +385,10 @@ > _LICENSE_NAME_RUBY= Ruby License > _LICENSE_GROUPS_RUBY= FSF > >+_LICENSE_NAME_WTFPL2= Do What the Fuck You Want to Public License >+_LICENSE_GROUPS_WTFPL2= COPYFREE >+_LICENSE_PERMS_WTFPL2= dist-mirror dist-sell pkg-mirror pkg-sell auto-accept >+ > _LICENSE_NAME_NONE= No license specified > _LICENSE_GROUPS_NONE= # empty > _LICENSE_PERMS_NONE= none >Index: Templates/Licenses/WTFPL2 >=================================================================== >--- Templates/Licenses/WTFPL2 (nonexistent) >+++ Templates/Licenses/WTFPL2 (working copy) >@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ >+ DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO PUBLIC LICENSE >+ Version 2, December 2004 >+ >+ Copyright (C) 2004 Sam Hocevar <sam@hocevar.net> >+ >+ Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim or modified >+ copies of this license document, and changing it is allowed as long >+ as the name is changed. >+ >+ DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO PUBLIC LICENSE >+ TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION >+ >+ 0. You just DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO. >+ > >Property changes on: Templates/Licenses/WTFPL2 >___________________________________________________________________ >Added: svn:eol-style >## -0,0 +1 ## >+native >\ No newline at end of property >Added: svn:mime-type >## -0,0 +1 ## >+text/plain >\ No newline at end of property I'm not sure the template is correct. I would say that templates do cannot have a specific copyright holder. Created attachment 182111 [details] v3 patch fix incorrect usage of _LICENSE_GROUPS and use _LICENSE_PERMS_DEFAULT mat@ I understand your point, for example the APACHE20 license https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html has a template at the bottom of the page, for applying the license to your own work. However in the case of the WTFPL2 the line: >+ Copyright (C) 2004 Sam Hocevar <sam@hocevar.net> Is *not* the copyright of the whole work, but specifically the copyright of the license itself, and therefore belongs with the license. For example we already have PHP301 with a similar line: > Copyright (c) 1999 - 2010 The PHP Group. All rights reserved. I revised the patch to fall through to use _LICENSE_PERMS_DEFAULT _LICENSE_PERMS_DEFAULT=>dist-mirror dist-sell pkg-mirror pkg-sell auto-accept I think this addresses the open concerns. I don't consider the WTFPL a real license and would have trouble justifying its use to anyone in a corporate setting. That said, this patch on its own is fine. We should not be in the business of vetting legality of licenses. I don't consider the WTFPL a real license and would have trouble justifying its use to anyone in a corporate setting. That said, this patch on its own is fine. We should not be in the business of vetting legality of licenses. After a slight re-reading can we call this WTFPL as the license https://spdx.org/licenses/WTFPL ? After a slight re-reading can we call this WTFPL as the license https://spdx.org/licenses/WTFPL ? I share your sentiment Eitan in general. I don't personally mind which URL we use for the licence, however I had to look up SPDX and equally I'd expect to find the URL for the Apache License on the Apache web site, and not on a 3rd party organisation which has been around for less time than the actual licence - WTFPL has been in circulation since 2000, v2 since 2004, and the SPDX and COPYFREE orgs only since 2010 & 2014 respectively. If you see some wider advantages in using the SPDX version then lets go for it; decision is over to you. FWIW I don't care which URL we use. I do care that the license shortnames/prefixes/abbreviations match those found on the SPDX list. *** Bug 214492 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** A commit references this bug: Author: mat Date: Wed May 10 12:47:38 UTC 2017 New revision: 440557 URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/440557 Log: Add the DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO PUBLIC LICENSE versions 1 and 2. PR: 218843, 214492 Submitted by: Dave Cottlehuber, Yuri Victorovich Sponsored by: Absolight Changes: head/Mk/bsd.licenses.db.mk head/Templates/Licenses/WTFPL head/Templates/Licenses/WTFPL1 |
Created attachment 182040 [details] v1 patch The WTFPL2 license is used by ~ 10 ports now, let's add it.