Re: Licence handling: next steps

[Thomas Klausner <wiz%NetBSD.org@localhost>]

On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 03:23:39PM +0200, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 02:53:46PM +0200, Thomas Klausner wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 02:47:17PM +0200, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> > > I don't like this syntax. Can we please make it
> > > (a) explicit
> > > (b) support ()
> > > (c) Spell them out instead of using weired symbols?
> > 
> > You mean something like:
> > LICENSE=    (license1 OR license2) AND license3 AND license4
> 
> Yes.
> 
> > I personally don't see the benefit, and it goes above my head to write
> > that in make. If someone else finds it useful, please go ahead and
> > provide a diff.
> 
> For (a): Because both AND and OR make a natural first level choice,
> depending on what you want to express.
> 
> For (b): There some non-trivial examples of licenses in the tree and
> adding the expressiveness doesn't hurt.
> 
> For (c) This is cosmetic, but it helps visibility for non programmers.

Ok, fine. Please go ahead and implement the support in pkg_admin, and
we can then use it for checks as you suggested. It would be great if
this could happen before the next branch.

Independent of that I'll switch to the license.mk code after the
branch, without the extended syntax, then we can immediately start
adding license information to packages which are singly licensed
without any complications, which, I hope, should be most of them.

I won't add any user-visible warnings for missing licenses, except to
pkglint or when PKG_DEVELOPER is set.

Cheers,
 Thomas