Subject: Re: Opera update: no more banners
To: Greg Troxel <email@example.com>
From: Geert Hendrickx <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 09/22/2005 22:41:13
On Thu, Sep 22, 2005 at 04:21:52PM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote:
> > Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 22:18:39 +0200
> > From: Geert Hendrickx <email@example.com>
> > To: Greg Troxel <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > 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
Not necessarily, the package could detect the presence of a LICENSE file
for example. As it does with the MESSAGES file. But then I think it would
be less easy to specify in /etc/mk.conf which licenses are accepted and
which are not.
> > Then maybe freeware-opera-license? Or just opera-revised-license?
> freeware is an undefined term.
It's the contents of the license-file that matters, not its name.
> > > 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.
Yes, agreed. But I still don't like opera-licese-2005. What if Opera
decides to change the license again in october 2005? :-)
What about opera-license-850, to be interpreted as "license of Opera
versions starting from 8.50" ?