[100945] trunk/dports/net/fwknop/Portfile

[Blair Zajac]

On 01/02/2013 12:48 AM, Joshua Root wrote:
> On 2013-1-2 17:42 , Blair Zajac wrote:
>> On 1/1/13 9:47 PM, Joshua Root wrote:
>>>> Revision: 100945
>>>>             https://trac.macports.org/changeset/100945
>>>> Author:   blair at macports.org
>>>> Date:     2013-01-01 15:44:59 -0800 (Tue, 01 Jan 2013)
>>>> Log Message:
>>>> -----------
>>>> fwknop: add license.
>>>>
>>>> Modified Paths:
>>>> --------------
>>>>       trunk/dports/net/fwknop/Portfile
>>>>
>>>> Modified: trunk/dports/net/fwknop/Portfile
>>>> ===================================================================
>>>> --- trunk/dports/net/fwknop/Portfile    2013-01-01 23:34:31 UTC (rev
>>>> 100944)
>>>> +++ trunk/dports/net/fwknop/Portfile    2013-01-01 23:44:59 UTC (rev
>>>> 100945)
>>>> @@ -6,6 +6,7 @@
>>>>    version         1.9.12
>>>>    revision        1
>>>>    categories      net security
>>>> +licence         {GPL GPL-2}
>>>
>>> This is saying the license is "Any version of the GPL, or GPLv2". That
>>> is of course equivalent to just "any version of the GPL". So if the
>>> current license is correct, you can simplify it to just GPL.
>>
>> Distinct files have different licenses, some are GPL and others just
>> GPLv2, so I followed the precedence in treating them as distinct
>> licenses, e.g. {BSD GPL-v+}.  How should we proceed?
>
> {BSD GPL} means the entire port is under your choice of BSD or GPL. It's
> incorrect to set the license to this if some files are BSD and some
> files are GPL. The overall license in that case is GPL. (Note that "{BSD
> GPL}" is different to "BSD GPL". The latter is just redundant since GPL
> + anything GPL compatible = GPL.)

Thanks, I was using {} to quote the license and I assumed that {BSD GPL} 
means that there are parts of it that are BSD and parts that are GPL, 
not that one can choose the license.

So we use {} to mean choice?  Since we're quoting, can we add |,so it 
would be {BSD|GPL}?

BTW, there are other ports that have a mixture of licenses in them.  For 
example, the old Subversion 1.6.x distributed some utility scripts that 
are GPL, even though Subversion is Apache-2.  So what do we do in that 
case?  What happens if separate parts of a port have incompatible licenses?

> If all files are GPL and some files are GPL-2 only, the only license
> that the entire port can be distributed under is GPL-2.

I updated it to GPL-2.

Blair