Subject: Re: Opera update: no more banners
To: Greg Troxel <email@example.com>
From: Geert Hendrickx <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 09/22/2005 22:18:39
On Thu, Sep 22, 2005 at 02:01:12PM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote:
> Infrastructure changes are out of bounds during the freeze. While
> having a single-package license in the package itself seems nice, I'd
> still like to have a line that looks like LICENSE= in the Makefile.
> Perhaps just look for it locally, and if not found in
Agreed, but we can already update the opera license.
I think putting licenses in the local dir is a good idea though, for
example that makes it possible for packages in pkgsrc-wip (or other
home-grew categories) to have their own licenses. But this can be
implemented after the freeze.
> For now, if the license is wrong it should be fixed. But I prefer to
> avoid the word 'free' in free-opera-license in order to avoid misleading
> people into thinking that opera is Free Software (a la FSF). OTOH of
> course it isn't free software, or there wouldn't be a license file.
Then maybe freeware-opera-license? Or just opera-revised-license?
> Perhaps "opera-license-2005" is non-judgemental and non-misleading.
But not very unambiguous. It's still applicable in 2006 :-) (and does not
apply to versions from earlier in 2005).
> This raises an interesting point, which is that changing a license file
> once it exists in other than cosmetic ways is a problem, because existing
> mk.conf lines will match the new license without review.
Yes, it must be renamed. Otherwise users will be unaware of the change.