Brook Milligan <brook%nmsu.edu@localhost> writes: >> On Jul 14, 2017, at 6:48 PM, Greg Troxel <gdt%lexort.com@localhost> wrote: >> >> The usual response is: >> >> Has this license been determined to be Free Software by FSF, or Open >> Source by OSI? If not, have you asked upstream to have it approved or >> use an approved license? >> >> Regardless, if this license is not in pkgsrc/licenses already, even if >> neither authority has blessed it, you are free to add it as >> licenses/flashpix-license (with -license meaning it has not been >> approved by a pkgsrc-recognized authority). > > The implication is that if a license is approved, then it should not have the -license suffix, right? If it's approved by any of the pkgsrc-desigated authorities, it should no have -license. > If so, why is the Boost license in licenses/boost-license and not licenses/boost? > > It is approved by OSI [1]. > > Cheers, > Brook > > [1] https://opensource.org/licenses/BSL-1.0 Either someone made a mistake or it was approved after we added it (or something else more complicated I haven't thought of). Feel free to move it (and change mk/licenses.mk, and a similar list in pkg_install. Please note the OSI approval in your commit message.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature