Re: package licensing issue

personally I don't think we should have private agreements like that, if it's not open for anyone to package I'd prefer to not allow distributing packages. I have no problem having that in ports with PERMIT_* disabled though.

-- 

  Sent from a phone, apologies for poor formatting.

On 14 January 2026 17:34:48 Ian Darwin <ian@darwinsys.com> wrote:

moderne-cli is as the name implies a CLI front-end to Moderne, a 

cross-repo refactoring tool. It has "recipes" for Java, JavaScript, C#, 

AWS, Docker/K8S, Node, Android, and dozens more - even a few for 

COBOL(!). While most of the "recipes" are open source, parts of the 

engine, and the server component, are not. Nor, alas, is the CLI tool 

itself, but they do distribute a compiled JAR file, which this port 

downloads from Maven central.

So is this sort of license marker likely to be acceptable?

# "Packaging the unmodified CLI JAR in the OpenBSD ports tree is okay"

#     -- Bryan Friedman <bryan at moderne dot io> 2026-01-14

# Free for open source projects, else need a license from Moderne.io.

PERMIT_PACKAGE =    Yes

Thx

Ian