Created attachment 170937 [details]
This needs a bit of cleanup before committing.
Takefu@, thanks for the patch. Mathieu, thanks for the feedback. I am assuming you mean to request the reporter submit a new, cleaned up patch, so I'm setting needs-patch. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Created attachment 171543 [details]
After trying to get my head around the legalese in all those files (and turning to debian package sources for comparison), I propose the attached revision of the patch. Changes:
- There is no indication for restricted distribution of src distfiles or pkgs (debian folks concur; they distribute packages as well)
- There is no mentioning of the 'sell for profit' clause anywhere in the source tarball -> remove from LEGAL
- The ISO/IEC license parts are part of the README document, not COPYING (latter contains just the GPL parts)
- Keep the noeol fix to the psych.h file
- in faac, patch only Makefile / keep the diff as small as possible for now, address only the licensing topic
- Package metadata and content changes due to LICENSE* tags -> Bump PORTREVISION
@takefu, mat: Could you quickly double-check whether I missed something?
A commit references this bug:
Date: Mon Jun 20 18:58:36 UTC 2016
New revision: 417172
Update LICENSE* in audio/faac; remove from LEGAL
- Remove audio/faac from LEGAL. There is no evidence that faac
may not be redistributed on sold media like FreeBSD CDs/DVDs.
Other well-established open source organisations arrive at the
same conclusion, e.g. Debian:
and, by extension, Ubuntu:
Arch Linux ships redistributable packages as well:
- Add LICENSE* tags in audio/faac
- Bump PORTREVISION in audio/faac (package metadata changes)
- Pet portlint
Submitted by: email@example.com
Reviewed by: riggs