So far, the license_groups entries only contain software licenses, but no documentation licenses like CCPL-Attribution-ShareAlike-3.0 or FDL-1.3. This has the strange consequence that most GNU software cannot be installed if one sets ACCEPT_LICENSE="@FSF-APPROVED @OSI-APPROVED", because the Texinfo manuals are typically licensed under one of the GNU FDL variants.
Shouldn't all licenses listed at <http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/> (unless marked as non-free) be added to FSF-APPROVED? These would be the following: Free Documentation Licenses: FDL* OPL Licenses for Works of Practical Use Besides Software and Documentation: FDL* CCPL-Attribution-2.0 (and later versions? FSF mentions 2.0 only) CCPL-Attribution-ShareAlike-2.0 (and later versions?) DSL FreeArt Licenses for Fonts: Arphic OFL* Licenses for Works of Opinion and Judgment (maybe omit this group?): CCPL-Attribution-NoDerivs-3.0 (there's only 2.5 in ${PORTDIR}/licenses/) ("GNU Verbatim Copying License" - not yet in ${PORTDIR}/licenses/) Alternatively, a new group like "FSF-APPROVED-NONSOFTWARE" (I'm sure that a better name can be found ;-) could be introduced for the above. Ulrich
