Created attachment 218193 [details] license-NONE-is-permissive.patch If software authors do not define any license for their software this means that it is free and open to use by default. An alternative explanation is that they don't care or didn't think about license, which also means that they didn't restrict use of their software. FreeBSD license LICENSE=NONE should reflect the above and should default to permissive PERMS.
legally in most countries no licenses means the copyright applies and in this case it is not permissive at all as far as I am aware.
(In reply to Baptiste Daroussin from comment #1) Copyright and license are different concepts. Copyright means that somebody claims authorship or ownership. License is a set if terms of use of software. LICENSE=NONE simply means that no limitations on copying/distributing/etc. were set. Copyright usually still applies, which means that others can't claim ownership. Rights to claim ownership are limited, but rights to copy and distribute aren't.
ok let me clarify what I was trying to say. if you have no license, there is nothing that is allowing anyone to redistribute, no fallback etc, in that case you have to ask the owners of the copyrights to explicit grant permissions for redistribution etc.
I am with Baptiste here, this is an absolute NO. The license framework is explicitely designed so that you must specify what permissions are allowed. If a port has no license, then you have absolutely no idea what the terms are. What you must do is ask upstream developpers for clarifications. You must not, ever, decide for yourself what the permissions are.
Ok, thanks.