> I guess one could argue that there's the possiblity of binaries of ports
> being distributed, but perhaps there needs to be some way in the ports
> system to indicate that binaries are not to be made available without
> first checking with the copyright....

There are already NO_CDROM, NO_PACKAGE and RESTRICTED variables that
can be set in a package's Makefile.  Here's how they are described in
the FreeBSD documentation (see <URL:ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/
FreeBSD-current/doc/handbook/porting.sgml>):

      <enum>
        <item>If the port has a `do not sell for profit' type of
          license, set the variable <tt>NO_CDROM</tt>.  We will make
          sure such ports won't go into the CD-ROM come release time.
          The distfile and package will still be available via ftp.

        <item>If the resulting package needs to be built uniquely for
          each site, or the resulting binary package can't be distributed
          due to licensing; set the variable <tt>NO_PACKAGE</tt>.
          We will make sure such packages won't go on the ftp site, nor
          into the CD-ROM come release time.  The distfile will still be
          included on both however.

        <item>If the port has legal restrictions on who can use it
          (e.g., crypto stuff) or has a `no commercial use' license,
          set the variable <tt>RESTRICTED</tt> to be the string
          describing the reason why.  For such ports, the
          distfiles/packages will not be available even from our ftp
          sites.
      </enum>

(The "distfile" is the unpatched stuff from the original author;
typically a tarball.  The "package" is the ready-to-install package;
typically a *.tgz file containing binaries and man pages.  AFAIK, the
stuff in the pkgsrc tree is never restricted by any of the above three
mechanisms.)

--apb (Alan Barrett)