comms/conserver-com: Update licensing details and pet portlint

[0mp]

Summary

1. For whatever reason I'm getting this fatal error from portlint:
   
   > FATAL: Makefile: license specified is BSD3CLAUSE OTHERBSDLIKELICENSES, but LICENSE_FILE specified is for BSD3CLAUSE.
   
   Why do I get it?

2. This change has to be committed after D17524 because the ${WRKSRC}/LICENSES file was added in 8.2.2.

Makefile changes:

• Switch the main license from BSD2CLAUSE to BSD3CLAUSE
• Mention other licenses under whose terms this software is distributed
• Sort variables

Test Plan

• portlint
• poudriere fail at the moment due to the missing ${WRKSRC}/LICENSES file

[sbruno]

FATAL: Makefile: license specified is BSD3CLAUSE OTHERBSDLIKELICENSES, but LICENSE_FILE specified is for BSD3CLAUSE.

portlint seems to dislike the multiple licenses, and to be fair I don't understand why we are defining multiple entries here.

[0mp]

In D17528#374140, @sbruno wrote:

FATAL: Makefile: license specified is BSD3CLAUSE OTHERBSDLIKELICENSES, but LICENSE_FILE specified is for BSD3CLAUSE.

portlint seems to dislike the multiple licenses, and to be fair I don't understand why we are defining multiple entries here.

I've added OTHERBSDLIKELICENSES because I don't know how to categorize those different licenses: https://github.com/conserver/conserver/blob/master/LICENSES

I don't know what's our approach to the LICENSE variable: is its role to be as precise as possible or to just give a clue of what sort of licenses you should expect if you have a closer look at the licensing.

[antoine]

There is no ${WRKSRC}/LICENSES , was this tested?

[sbruno]

In D17528#374172, @antoine wrote:

There is no ${WRKSRC}/LICENSES , was this tested?

Isn't there one if you apply the parent revision first?

[0mp]

In D17528#374172, @antoine wrote:

There is no ${WRKSRC}/LICENSES , was this tested?

First of all, thanks for testing out my patch :)

You are right, the file is not there (yet) and I'm aware of it. See the description of the revision.