On Fri, Oct 29, 2021 at 06:47:20PM -0600, Thomas Frohwein wrote: > On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 09:26:59AM -0600, Thomas Frohwein wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 09, 2021 at 04:57:56PM +0200, Stefan Hagen wrote: > > [...] > > > > My read of the license is that it's zlib license with an addition > > > > limiting it to non-commercial use. As there's no CD-ROMs anymore, I > > > > don't think that matters for packaging the port. > > > > > > > > Here is the license for review: > > > > > > > > https://raw.githubusercontent.com/TerryCavanagh/VVVVVV/master/LICENSE.md > > > > > > After reading the license, I believe as well that we're good to > > > redistribute it. > > > > Thanks, I appreciate the look. Could I get another set of porter eyes > > and ok before I commit this with PERMIT_PACKAGE=Yes? > > *ping*
*ping* It's only the decision about the license that needs some more input to make sure it's good to permit the package. > > > However, this part may apply: > > > > > > - Altered source/binary versions must be plainly marked as such, and > > > must not be misrepresented as being the original software. > > > > > > Once there is a patch, the software is altered. Maybe a single sentence > > > in the README about this would cover it. > > > > > > "This version of VVVVVV has been changed to run on OpenBSD." > > > > This is part of the standard zlib license [1]. As far as I know, we > > don't do this for any of the other zlib-licensed ports. There are many, > > among others are minizip, sdl*, optipng, sfml, tinyxml, and irrlicht. I > > would say the assumption is that it being in ports with a patches/ > > directory is marking it clearly enough... > > > > [1] https://opensource.org/licenses/Zlib > > >
