Subject: Re: NO_{SRC,BIN}_ON_{FTP,CDROM}
To: Frederick Bruckman <>
From: Marc Espie <>
List: tech-pkg
Date: 07/29/2000 10:45:35
On Fri, Jul 28, 2000 at 11:48:05PM -0500, Frederick Bruckman wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Jul 2000, Marc Espie wrote:
> > 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.
> What sort of "problems"? Lawsuits from the copyright holder? Criminal
> proscution? Complaints?

Mostly sloppy ports not checking things properly yet. May end up with 
real trouble if stuff ends on the official CD and lawsuit result...

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

> I'm still not sold. The present polarity seems more intuitive, to me. Just
> my opinion.

Well, I'll concede you that, no problem.  There are a few points in the
package system that are unintuitive, always.

I would just like to avoid the shift because it falls under the heading of 
gratuitous difference that will do nothing but confuse users that use both 

If it were six months ago, and you were discussing the same matter on, I would be very willing to shift.  However, gratuitously
changing 800 Makefiles at the moment is out of the question for us.
	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'