[150207] trunk/dports/perl/p5-net-cidr-lite/Portfile

Ryan Schmidt ryandesign at macports.org
Thu Jul 14 20:13:17 PDT 2016

On Jul 14, 2016, at 10:17 AM, Daniel J. Luke wrote:
> On Jul 14, 2016, at 11:14 AM, Brandon Allbery wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 11:07 AM, Daniel J. Luke wrote:
>>> I don't think it's useful to define a status for "it's unclear which version of a license this falls under". (what kind of decisions would we make based on that data?)
>> "this license is underspecified; prod someone to fix it"
> which is also true of any portfile without a license line.
> I'm asking what the utility is of having a middle ground between "we know what this license is" and "we don't know what this license is" 

The utility is: people often submit new Portfiles in tickets in the issue tracker and indicate "license GPL". This means we have to then ask the submitter if they really meant any version of GPL, which is unusual and used almost exclusively for Perl software, or whether they did not research what version of GPL applies. If we instead decided to use "GPL-1+" to indicate "really, any version of GPL", and a Portfile was submitted indicating "license GPL-1+", then we would know that any version of GPL is acceptable without having to ask, and if the submitted Portfile indicated "license GPL", then we would know that the user failed to indicate which versions apply.

> Or, I'm arguing that if it's unclear what version of a license applies, we should treat it the same as not knowing what license applies.

We currently employ the same syntax (e.g. "GPL") for indicating "any version of this license is OK" and "somebody forgot to specify what version of this license is OK". I'm suggesting we should adopt syntax so that we can differentiate those two cases.

More information about the macports-dev mailing list