Created attachment 147225 [details] LICENSE_PD (PublicDomain) variations from /usr/ports/ When I was searching for the right LICENSE entries for some ports—as portlint(1) urged me to specify it—I realised that there seem to be missing two cases: * “Public Domain” license * “Copyright © Hansi Wurzl” or some other author of software So I looked into the “Porter’s Handbook”¹⁾ searching for every occurrence of “license” and into the files Mk/bsd.licenses.db.mk as well as Mk/bsd.licenses.mk, and searched for something that could match “Public Domain”, and found nothing. Then I did some grep(1)ping in /usr/ports/ find /usr/ports/ -name Makefile\* -exec \ grep -iHn "license.*public.*domain.*" {} \; > license_PD.txt Complete variations used in those ports can be found in the attachment LICENSE_PD_variations.txt As you can see, it is an awful mess! :-( Pray do add an entry like: _LICENSE_NAME_PD= Public Domain to Mk/bsd.licenses.db.mk and do make the necessary other adjustments. Some text about the handling of LICENSE in the “Porter’s Handbook”¹⁾ would be very welcome too and would reduce the mess—at least it would be easy to point the errors out to the maintainers ;-) -------- And what about the second case mentioned above—namely “Copyright © Hansi Wurzl” or some other author of software? How should one handle this case? E.g.: software under GPLv3 “Copyright © Hansi Wurzl” would be something similar to: ---8<--- LICENSE= GPLv3 Copyright_By_HansiWurzl LICENSE_COMB= multi LICENSE_NAME_Copyright_By_HansiWurzl= Copyright by Hansi Wurzl <root@freelove.tu-graz.ac.at> LICENSE_TEXT_Copyright_By_HansiWurzl= ??? LICENSE_PERMS_Copyright_By_HansiWurzl= dist-mirror dist-sell pkg-mirror pkg-sell auto-accept --->8--- I suppose? Or how should we implement that? (and the “???” are not good too ;-)) Again: some section in the “Porter’s Handbook”¹⁾ explaining this too would be very welcome. Thank you! Kalten ¹⁾ https://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/porters-handbook/book.html
Public Domain licenses are intentionally omitted. Doesn't it seem strange that such a common "license" isn't defined as a standard license? This isn't the first PR to request this, I guess it will not be the last. Moving to closed - REJECTED. PD is not legally permissible in many jurisdictions.