Re: isc-AUTHOR (Re: CVS commit: pkgsrc/licenses

[Greg Troxel <gdt%lexort.com@localhost>]

Leonardo Taccari <leot%NetBSD.org@localhost> writes:

> Makoto Fujiwara writes:
>> Hi, I've added new license file, was it OK ?
>>
>
> Hello Makoto,
>
>> At updating sysutils/bfs, I needed to add LICENSE as pkglint flags.
>>
>> The bfs source tree has COPYING file, and it is really similar to
>> isc license. But isc one  has ISC string recorded, so I've changed it
>> to AUTHOR, which bfs-1.5.1/COPYING has.
>>
>> And committed to isc-AUTHOR.
>> Please issue command
>>   cd /usr/pkgsrc/licenses;
>>   cwdiff isc isc-AUTHOR
>>
>
> Apart ISC/author change the other (more) significant change in the
> license of sysutils/bfs seems to be a missing part in the first
> paragraph (in `[...]' parts that are only in isc):
>
>  | Permission to use, copy, modify, and/or distribute this software for any
>  | purpose with or without fee is hereby granted [, provided that the above
>  | copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies].
>
> IMHO it's okay and safe to just reuse `isc' as LICENSE and remove
> `isc-AUTHOR' one.
>
> (But please wait for other possible feedbacks/comments!)

Agreed.

We consider the license separately from the entity that issues it.  So a
change of variables to a new entity does not warrant a new file.  Maybe
this isn't documented well enough.

Agreed that re-using isc for a license that drops the statement about
retaining copyright is ok.   That means that complying with isc complies
with the new one, and really the point is to avoid people being
surprised by objectionable licenses.