 @@ -1,14 +1,14 @@
-<!-- $NetBSD: fixes.xml,v 1.137 2016/06/21 21:47:29 wiz Exp $ -->
+<!-- $NetBSD: fixes.xml,v 1.138 2016/07/09 14:44:06 rillig Exp $ -->
 <chapter id="fixes"> <?dbhtml filename="fixes.html"?>
 <title>Making your package work</title>
 <sect1 id="general-operation">
   <title>General operation</title>
   <para>One appealing feature of pkgsrc is that it runs on many
   different platforms. As a result, it is important to ensure,
   where possible, that packages in pkgsrc are portable. This
   chapter mentions some particular details you should pay
   attention to while working on pkgsrc.</para>
 @@ -78,53 +78,42 @@
     <programlisting>
 INTERACTIVE_STAGE=      configure install
     </programlisting>
     <para>The user can then decide to skip this package by setting the
     <varname>BATCH</varname> variable. Packages that require interaction
     are also excluded from bulk builds.</para>
   </sect2>
   <sect2 id="handling-licenses">
     <title>Handling licenses</title>
-    <para>Authors of software can choose the licence under which
+    <para>Authors of software can choose the licence under which software
-    software can be copied.  This is due to copyright law, and reasons
+    can be copied.  The Free Software Foundation has declared some
-    for license choices are outside the scope of pkgsrc.  The pkgsrc
+    licenses "Free", and the Open Source Initiative has a definition of
-    system recognizes that there are a number of licenses which some
+    "Open Source".</para>
     users may find objectionable or difficult or impossible to comply
-    with.  The Free Software Foundation has declared some licenses
+    <para>By default, pkgsrc allows packages with Free or Open Source
-    "Free", and the Open Source Initiative has a definition of "Open
+    licenses to be built.  To allow packages with other licenses to be
-    Source".  The pkgsrc system, as a policy choice, does not label
+    built as well, the pkgsrc user needs to add these licenses to the
-    packages which have licenses that are Free or Open Source.
+    <varname>ACCEPTABLE_LICENSES</varname> variable in &mk.conf;.  Note
-    However, packages without a license meeting either of those tests
+    that this variable only affects which packages may be
-    are labeled with a license tag denoting the license.  Note that a
+    <emphasis>built</emphasis>, while the license terms often also
-    package with no license to copy trivially does not meet either the
+    restrict the actual use of the package and its redistribution.</para>
     Free or Open Source test.</para>
     <para>For packages which are not Free or Open Source, pkgsrc will
     not build the package unless the user has indicated to pkgsrc that
     packages with that particular license may be built.  Note that
     this documentation avoids the term "accepted the license".  The
     pkgsrc system is merely providing a mechanism to avoid
     accidentally building a package with a non-free license;
     judgement and responsibility remain with the user.  (Installation
     of binary packages are not currently subject to this mechanism;
     this is a bug.)</para>
     <para>One might want to only install packages with a BSD license,
     or the GPL, and not the other.  The free licenses are added to the
-    default <varname>ACCEPTABLE_LICENSES</varname> variable.  The
+    default <varname>ACCEPTABLE_LICENSES</varname> variable.  The pkgsrc
     user can override the default by setting the
     <varname>ACCEPTABLE_LICENSES</varname> variable with "=" instead
     of "+=".  The licenses accepted by default are:
     <programlisting>
 	apache-1.1 apache-2.0
 	arphic-public
 	artistic artistic-2.0
 	boost-license
 	cc-by-sa-v3.0
 	cc0-1.0-universal
 	cddl-1.0
 	cpl-1.0
 	epl-v1.0
 @@ -190,55 +179,75 @@ LICENSE=        xv-license
 *** Error code 1
     </programlisting>
     <para>The license can be viewed with <command>make
     show-license</command>, and if the user so chooses, the line
     printed above can be added to &mk.conf; to
     convey to pkgsrc that it should not in the future fail because of
     that license:</para>
     <programlisting>
 ACCEPTABLE_LICENSES+=xv-license
     </programlisting>
     <para>The use of <varname>LICENSE=shareware</varname>,
     <varname>LICENSE=no-commercial-use</varname>, and similar language
     is deprecated because it does not crisply refer to a particular
     license text.  Another problem with such usage is that it does not
     enable a user to tell pkgsrc to proceed for a single package
     without also telling pkgsrc to proceed for all packages with that
     tag.</para>
   <sect3 id="new-license">
   <title>Adding a package with a new license</title>
     <para>When adding a package with a new license, the following steps
     are required:</para>
     <orderedlist>
     <listitem><para>Check if the file can avoid the -license filename tag as described above by referencing <ulink url="http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html">Various Licenses and Comments about Them</ulink> and <ulink url="http://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical">Licenses by Name | Open Source Initiative</ulink>.  If this is the case, additionally add the license filename to:</para>
     <listitem><para>Check whether the license qualifies as Free or Open
     Source by referencing <ulink
     url="http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html">Various Licenses
     and Comments about Them</ulink> and <ulink
     url="http://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical">Licenses by Name |
     Open Source Initiative</ulink>.  If this is the case, the filename in
     <filename>pkgsrc/licenses/</filename> does not need the
     <filename>-license</filename> suffix, and the license name should be
     added to:</para>
     <itemizedlist>
     <listitem><para>DEFAULT_ACCEPTABLE_LICENSES in <filename>pkgsrc/mk/license.mk</filename></para></listitem>
     <listitem><para>default_acceptable_licenses in <filename>pkgsrc/pkgtools/pkg_install/files/lib/license.c</filename></para></listitem>
     <listitem><para>the ACCEPTABLE_LICENSES list in <filename>pkgsrc/doc/guide/files/fixes.xml</filename></para></listitem>
     </itemizedlist>
     <para>with the proper syntax as demonstrated in those files, respectively.</para></listitem>
     <listitem><para>The license text should be added to <filename>pkgsrc/licenses</filename> for displaying.  A list of known licenses can be seen in this directory.</para></listitem>
     </orderedlist>
   </sect3>
   <sect3 id="change-license">
   <title>Change to the license</title>
     <para>When the license changes (in a way other than formatting),
     please make sure that the new license has a different name (e.g.,
     append the version number if it exists, or the date).  Just
     because a user told pkgsrc to build programs under a previous
     version of a license does not mean that pkgsrc should build
     programs under the new licenses.  The higher-level point is that
     pkgsrc does not evaluate licenses for reasonableness; the only
     test is a mechanistic test of whether a particular text has been
     approved by either of two bodies.</para>
   </sect3>
-    <para>The use of <varname>LICENSE=shareware</varname>,
+  </sect2>
     <varname>LICENSE=no-commercial-use</varname>, and similar language
     is deprecated because it does not crisply refer to a particular
     license text.  Another problem with such usage is that it does not
     enable a user to tell pkgsrc to proceed for a single package
     without also telling pkgsrc to proceed for all packages with that
     tag.</para> </sect2>
   <sect2 id="restricted-packages">
     <title>Restricted packages</title>
     <para>Some licenses restrict how software may be re-distributed.
     Because a license tag is required unless the package is Free or
     Open Source, all packages with restrictions should have license
     tags.  By declaring the restrictions, package tools can
     automatically refrain from e.g. placing binary packages on FTP
     sites.</para>
     <para>There are four restrictions that may be encoded, which are
     the cross product of sources (distfiles) and binaries not being