[MacPorts] snc/licenses modified

[MacPorts]

Changed page "snc/licenses" by snc at macports.org from 129.137.118.253*
Page URL: <http://trac.macports.org/wiki/snc/licenses>
Diff URL: <http://trac.macports.org/wiki/snc/licenses?action=diff&version=13>
Revision 13

-------8<------8<------8<------8<------8<------8<------8<------8<--------
Index: snc/licenses
=========================================================================
--- snc/licenses (version: 12)
+++ snc/licenses (version: 13)
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
-= MacPorts 1.8.0 and the Introduction of Licenses =
-As it stands, every package that is to be distributed as a binary package must contain a copy of the license.  This is usually handled with the Makefiles automatically placing it along with the documentation.  Soon, MacPorts is aiming to make use of the license information.
+This document strives to inform and direct MacPorts development on the road to binary distribution. As we begin to compile and package software we must be mindful of what is allowed under the license of each. Generally this is as simple as including a copy of the license.
 
-With the 1.8.0 release, there's a new field called {{{license}}}.  Like the other fields in portfiles, this one is defined by typing the field name and tabbing (as four spaces at a time) to line up with the rest of the fields.
+= MacPorts and the Introduction of Licenses =
+Since the 1.8.0 release of MacPorts there has been a field called {{{license}}}.  Like [guide:#development.creating-portfile other fields in portfiles], this one is defined by typing the field name and tabbing (as four spaces at a time) to line up with the rest of the fields.
 {{{
 ...
 name                 test
@@ -10,6 +10,12 @@
 ...
 }}}
 '''NOTE:''' this field is presently for informational purposes. In the future, MacPorts' backend may treat a package by its most restrictive license with respect to binary distribution.
+
+= Policy =
+
+While we want to simply make use of licensing information, we should also beware of instances where it is incorrect. For example, as long as the LGPL is distributed along with any packages that may be utilizing such libraries, it should be okay. If they are not provided by the package, then that package is violating the LGPL. In this instance we should not build binaries. Instead, we ought to report such cases to the vendor or to the FSF so the licenses can be fixed before trying to distribute said software.
+
+To most easily prevent us from distributing unauthorized binaries we should only build them if the license is of a suitable level of openness. That is, our automation system must be able to address the concerns of the license before any packages using that license should be distributed as binaries.
 
 Since there are no predetermined values to use with {{{license}}} I suggest that we divide software into categories.  To that end, here are the categories and subsequent licenses I feel accomplish the eventual goals of automated builds and distribution of binaries.
 
@@ -25,7 +31,7 @@
 
 = Include Notices, Make Source Available =
 
-These licenses require that only the license and possible notices must be distributed with a binary. Of interesting note is the fact that many packages have man pages that cover the license as well. 
+As a general rule, every package that is to be distributed as a binary must contain a copy of its license and any accompanying notices. This is usually handled with Makefiles automatically placing it along with the documentation. Of interesting note is the fact that many packages have man pages that cover the license as well. 
 
  * Apache
  * [#BSD BSD]
@@ -42,7 +48,7 @@
 The GPL requires that source code is freely available from the same place as the binary, which is presently handled by MacPorts since by default it provides binaries by building them from the source.  In the future, it may become necessary to provide both a binary and a source code package for ports using this license or to have the source code bundled with the archive of the binary.
 
 == LGPL ==
-The GNU [http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html Lesser General Public License] differs from the GPL by allowing generated libraries to be used in proprietary programs.  MacPorts sees these licenses as identical since we only deal with open-source software. As such, I don't believe we need this category.
+The GNU [http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html Lesser General Public License] differs from the GPL by allowing generated libraries to be used in proprietary programs.
 
 == BSD ==
 For BSD-style licenses, including the [http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php "original" and "modified" BSD licenses] and the [http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php MIT license]. The [http://www.opensource.org/licenses/apache2.0.php Apache license] also counts as BSD. With these licenses the distribution of source code is optional.

-------8<------8<------8<------8<------8<------8<------8<------8<--------

* The IP shown here might not mean anything if the user or the server is
behind a proxy.

--
MacPorts <http://www.macports.org/>
Ports system for Mac OS

This is an automated message. Someone at http://www.macports.org/ added your email
address to be notified of changes on snc/licenses. If it was not you, please
report to .