Bug 223932 - [request] License should be optional for metaports
Summary: [request] License should be optional for metaports
Status: New
Alias: None
Product: Ports & Packages
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Ports Framework (show other bugs)
Version: Latest
Hardware: Any Any
: --- Affects Only Me
Assignee: Port Management Team
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2017-11-28 08:12 UTC by Yuri Victorovich
Modified: 2017-11-30 16:36 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Yuri Victorovich freebsd_committer 2017-11-28 08:12:07 UTC
'make' in a metaport complains: Please set LICENSE for this port
Metaports don't have any distfiles, and are merely collections of other ports. License doesn't apply to them in most cases.

Please make LICENSE optional for metaports, do not complain when it is missing.
Comment 1 Mathieu Arnold freebsd_committer 2017-11-28 14:23:33 UTC
Maybe instead USES=metaport should set LICENSE=PD or LICENSE=NONE or something similar.
Comment 2 Chris Hutchinson 2017-11-28 15:22:50 UTC
(In reply to Mathieu Arnold from comment #1)
> Maybe instead USES=metaport should set LICENSE=PD or LICENSE=NONE or
> something similar.

Indeed. Maybe the ports framework could have a "magic" LICENSE key
like NOREQ, UNREQ, or DOESNOTAPPLY? For these type of situations?

Just my .02ยข

Thanks for bringing this up Yuri! Good catch!

--Chris
Comment 3 Mark Linimon freebsd_committer freebsd_triage 2017-11-28 16:38:42 UTC
possibly LICENSE=SKIP ?
Comment 4 Chris Hutchinson 2017-11-28 16:58:39 UTC
(In reply to Mark Linimon from comment #3)
> possibly LICENSE=SKIP ?

Ooo, I like it! +1 from me. :)

--Chris
Comment 5 Yuri Victorovich freebsd_committer 2017-11-28 17:08:18 UTC
(In reply to Mark Linimon from comment #3)

+1
Comment 6 Yuri Victorovich freebsd_committer 2017-11-28 23:37:20 UTC
Actually, LICENSE=SKIP is very generic and unclear.

I would rather suggest explicit choices:
> LICENSE=NOT_APPLICABLE   # can't have a license, like for metaport
> LICENSE=NOT_SPECIFIED    # author didn't care to set the license
Comment 7 Yuri Victorovich freebsd_committer 2017-11-29 05:38:41 UTC
'SKIP' is an action, but the reason for the action is more descriptive.
Comment 8 Chris Hutchinson 2017-11-29 06:45:41 UTC
(In reply to Yuri Victorovich from comment #7)
> 'SKIP' is an action, but the reason for the action is more descriptive.

While I can see your other point. I'm still in for SKIP.
Because in this use case, it really seems the best description
for the needed action. :)

--Chris
Comment 9 Mathieu Arnold freebsd_committer 2017-11-29 09:13:10 UTC
All your suggestions are nice, but they all end up meaning:

LICENSE= NONE
Comment 10 Antoine Brodin freebsd_committer 2017-11-29 10:52:50 UTC
(In reply to Mathieu Arnold from comment #9)
hmm, LICENSE=NONE means no redistribution/selling
Comment 11 Mathieu Arnold freebsd_committer 2017-11-29 12:08:45 UTC
I wonder if the 34 ports that use it know that.
Comment 12 Mathieu Arnold freebsd_committer 2017-11-29 12:22:40 UTC
Anyway, the best we can do is add a LICENSE?= BSD2CLAUSE in Mk/Uses/metaport.mk.
Comment 13 Yuri Victorovich freebsd_committer 2017-11-29 16:05:13 UTC
(In reply to Mathieu Arnold from comment #12)

Maybe, the best thing to do is to add licenses that really reflect the situation?
Comment 14 Chris Hutchinson 2017-11-29 16:21:30 UTC
(In reply to Mathieu Arnold from comment #12)
> Anyway, the best we can do is add a LICENSE?= BSD2CLAUSE in
> Mk/Uses/metaport.mk.

IMHO if that's the case, than the LICENSE hook seems flawed.
None of the options/solutions /really/ seem to be correct.
More like duct tape, or an afterthought. Is there no
relatively easy way to unhook LICENSE from META-ports?
There really isn't a need for LICENSE to be involved in
this case, as the individual (included) ports each
declare their respective LICENSE.

--Chris
Comment 15 Mathieu Arnold freebsd_committer 2017-11-30 16:36:23 UTC
Well, metaports can have the license the Ports tree is distributed with, which is BSD2CLAUSE, it seems the more sensible thing to do.