Subject: Re: NO_{SRC,BIN}_ON_{FTP,CDROM}
To: Frederick Bruckman <>
From: Marc Espie <>
List: tech-pkg
Date: 07/28/2000 04:38:14
On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 06:58:13PM -0500, Frederick Bruckman wrote:

> But what a difference... Four additional lines to every single package
> "Makefile"? Sounds excessive, when you consider that it's a rare package
> that can't be freely re-distributed, especially now that the crytpo/RSA
> restrictions are about to disappear.

We had problems in the past with not enough license information being
provided. Insisting on it is a simple way to make sure porters do look
at what licensing information is provided with the software.

(In fact, if you really look at licences, you'll find out that many licences
are NOT clear at all...  there are sometimes files of fairly dubious
provenance in the middle of a `clear' package)

But I digress.

> > So, as we've put this information on all our ports already, we're a bit
> > loathe to go back and change the name everywhere.

> I sympathize, but isn't that what you're asking us to do?

> > Since the addition to NetBSD is fairly recent, maybe you could still
> > reconsider the name ? Just so, as to avoid gratuitous drift between
> > both systems.

> "Recent" is irrelevant; if I understand you correctly, you're requesting
> that NetBSD pkgsrc add about 4000 lines of makefile. I'm against the idea
> on its merits. There are only a handful of packages for which restrictions
> are really appropriate. Even for those, recognizing the restriction is
> only a courtesy, not an enforcable legal requirement. As if all that work
> up front weren't bad enough, it would seem to imply that every new package
> submitter needs to do "research" before certifying that a distfile or
> binary packagage is OK to distribute. And if a submitter or committer
> doesn't want to stick his neck out? Then we'll have a bunch of holes in
> our package system, and a big mess to straighten out later.

No, you don't understand me correctly. All I'm asking for is that you 
reconsider the names and use ours.

If you don't wish to put explicit licensing information in your ports,
and default to Yes, that's fine for me.

All I'm asking is that you consider using the same name that we do, for
information that is exactly the same.

I fully expect that you're probably going to have a default.  This is much
less confusing than having completely different names that will hold the 
same information, basically.

The point I wanted to stress is that, after due consideration, we 
decided to go with no default for the OpenBSD ports tree, and hence changing 
our names this late in the game is utterly impossible.
	Marc Espie		
|anime, sf, juggling, unicycle, acrobatics, comics...
|AmigaOS, OpenBSD, C++, perl, Icon, PostScript...
| `real programmers don't die, they just get out of beta'