On Fri, 28 Jul 2000, Marc Espie wrote:

> We had problems in the past with not enough license information being
> provided. Insisting on it is a simple way to make sure porters do look
> at what licensing information is provided with the software.

What sort of "problems"? Lawsuits from the copyright holder? Criminal
proscution? Complaints?
 
> (In fact, if you really look at licences, you'll find out that many licences
> are NOT clear at all...  there are sometimes files of fairly dubious
> provenance in the middle of a `clear' package)

Exactly. So what are we to make of it? In my opinion, we may as well
assume that source and binaries are distributable unless there are clear
indications otherwise. I mean, if the developer says we shouldn't, then we
shouldn't, but if he has no complaint, then whose interest is served by
being overly pedantic about the license? 

> If you don't wish to put explicit licensing information in your ports,
> and default to Yes, that's fine for me.

I see.

> All I'm asking is that you consider using the same name that we do, for
> information that is exactly the same.

I'm still not sold. The present polarity seems more intuitive, to me. Just
my opinion.



Frederick