Thomas Klausner <wiz%netbsd.org@localhost> writes: > On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 03:39:41PM -0400, rodent%NetBSD.org@localhost wrote: >> After the freeze, i'd like to move licenses/open-font-license to >> licenses/open-font-license-v1.1 and add licenses/open-font-license-v1.0. The >> differences between the two are subtle, but perhaps worth clarifying. There >> are 27 packages in HEAD and wip that would be affected. Is there a problem >> with this? If they are different they should have different files/names. So that's just fixing a bug. Basically the rule is that if you human-word-diff the licenses, they should be the same file iff they are equal except for change of variables about copyright holder (and text that is not actually part of the license does not count). > Sounds good, but please call them open-font-v1.1 and open-font-v1.0, > since they are in the default-allowed set. Agreed, but strictly speaking that should be because they fit the set of licenses that are by policy properly put in the default allowed set before board@ exceptions (OSI or FSF approved). If they aren't approved, we should think about it. It's not that I'm dogmatic about OSI/FSF, but that I think it's good to minimize the amount of license policy set by pkgsrc - right now it's OSI/FSF, with one exception by board%netbsd.org@localhost to not have AGPL in the default allowed set. I realize there is some fuzz for licenses that some people thought were more or less free.
Attachment:
pgpvQSh36uUSL.pgp
Description: PGP signature