> Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 22:18:39 +0200
> From: Geert Hendrickx <geert.hendrickx@ua.ac.be>
> To: Greg Troxel <gdt@ir.bbn.com>
> Cc: tech-pkg@NetBSD.org, jdolecek@NetBSD.org,
> 	Ignatios Souvatzis <is@NetBSD.org>
> Subject: Re: Opera update: no more banners
> Message-ID: <20050922201839.GA5589@lori.mine.nu>
> 
> 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
> > /usr/pkgsrc/licenses.
> 
> 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.  

Sure, I think that's fine, just pointing out that we can't do it now.
And, I was trying to make the point that one should still have
LICENSE= in the Makefile, not just the presence of the local license
file.

> Then maybe freeware-opera-license?  Or just opera-revised-license?  

freeware is an undefined term.

> > 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).

It's clear to me: the first opera license that was introduced in 2005.
It's merely a tag, and lets someone know it's different from
opera-license.  What it applies to is encoded via LICENSE=, so there's
no need for the name to say that.