Created attachment 186546 [details] patch file Update license information.
Since the README file specifies the software is licensed under the unmodified BSD3CLAUSE/GPLv3 licences, do you agree that we don't need to actually include the ``LICENSE_FILE=`` in the Makefile? Reference: https://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/porters-handbook/licenses.html#licenses-license-ex1 In other words, we can just add ``LICENSE=BSD3CLAUSE GPLv3`` and ``LICENSE_COMB=dual`` and not add the ``LICENCE_FILE=`` or the files locally. Does that make sense?
Created attachment 186553 [details] updated patch file (In reply to Philip Paeps from comment #1) I didn't know this example. Thank you for telling me. I updated patch so please commit it instead of original one.
A commit references this bug: Author: philip Date: Tue Sep 19 21:41:46 UTC 2017 New revision: 450170 URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/450170 Log: Fix LICENSE to match reality: BSD3CLAUSE or GPLv3. From https://raw.githubusercontent.com/stucchio/Python-LRU-cache/master/LICENSE PR: 222458 Submitted by: Yasuhiro KIMURA <yasu@utahime.org> Changes: head/devel/py-pylru-cache/Makefile
Committed. Thanks!