Re: [gentoo-dev] ACCEPT_LICENSE revisited

[Chris Gianelloni]

On Tue, 2006-11-21 at 09:08 +1100, George Prowse wrote:
> Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > On Sat, 2006-11-18 at 13:25 -0800, Brian Harring wrote:
> >>> License groups may be negated with the result that all elements of that group
> >>> are also negated.
> >> Left out that if it's unset, it should default to ACCEPT_LICENSE=* ,
> >> meaning no license filtering.
> >
> > Except that it shouldn't.  It should be set to @NON-INTERACTIVE, as the
> > GLEP says, to match what we currently have with the combination of
> > portage+eutils.eclass settings.
> >
> > Certain packages will *always* require interactive acceptance of the
> > license, as they currently do.
> >
>
> I agree with Brian on this. No setup should mean no rules.

I'll be honest.  I don't care what your opinion is here.  I know that
sounds a bit callous, but it isn't, and here's why.  I care about what
we have to do with these packages that have restrictive licenses which
require us to do this sort of thing.  You can argue all that you want,
but we have a legal *requirement* to do this, which is *exactly* why
check_license came about in the first place.  The only difference here
is we're moving it from the ebuilds to portage.

> If people decide not to use the function it is not Gentoo's decision to
> still filter their packages.

It has nothing to do with being "Gentoo's decision" and everything to do
with following the license to the letter.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering Strategic Lead
Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams
Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee
Gentoo Foundation