> On 03/16/11 12:24, Theo de Raadt wrote: > >>> One word can change the meaning of a sentence. You failed at what you > >>> intended, and you also confused people. > >> > >> You're the only person who has ever told me that the Tarsnap license is > >> confusing. Maybe everybody else was confused but didn't want to admit it. > > > > It's not me. I am only joining a thread that other people started. > > I must have misunderstood what other people were saying. I thought the > earlier complaints were just that Tarsnap's license is not open source and > that (according to some people at least) openbsd's ports tree shouldn't > contain non-open-source code.
Yes, there are some people saying that. They don't speak for the project. Our ports tree is a framework that links to "stuff you can find on the net". As long as a port contains the right licence markers (which is an extreme simplification of the licence meaning down to 'PERMIT=word'), then it is acceptable in our ports tree. Our goal is to let people make the decision themselves. Some people may not like it, but we don't care about them. They can avoid the ports or package tree if they want to. For some reason they don't, and yet keep whining about this... Anyways, the labelling effort is taken seriously, so the problem is essentially solved. I think the port based on your code has been relabelled already. What bothers some of the ports developers though, is when they get fooled by a look-alike license, and end up incorrectly marking the package. That is what this thread is really all about. > >> In any case, I'm happy to change the license text to make it clearer; how > >> do you think "here's some code for you to use to access the Tarsnap > >> service; > >> that's the only thing you're allowed to use it for" should be phrased? > > > > Hey, that text there sounds fine to me. That's your own risk (if there is > > any risk; let's be realistic, much of the time that is overblown). > > > > But please just make sure it doesn't look like a BSD licence, and fool > > anyone. I understand that was never your intent. > > Do you think that applying > Unless specified otherwise in individual files, the contents of this > -package is covered by the following copyright, license, and disclaimer: > +package is covered by the following copyright, license, and disclaimer > +(please note that this is not an "open source" license): > > Copyright 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 Colin Percival > All rights reserved. > to the COPYING file would make this clear? Yeah, I suppose. It is all about reducing confusion. If you think people will read far enough to see that....
