| 1 |
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, 29 May 2009 19:17:03 +0200 |
| 3 |
> Mounir Lamouri <volkmar@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> Most of GLEP 23 features have already been implemented in portage. |
| 6 |
>> Some since |
| 7 |
>> a long time (at least in stable portage) like multiple licenses and |
| 8 |
>> conditional |
| 9 |
>> licenses. License group and ACCEPT_LICENSE is already implemented in |
| 10 |
>> portage 2.2 (masked). |
| 11 |
>> |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> The main show-stopper for this last time it came up was all those X |
| 14 |
> packages using their package name as a licence. Have you thought of how |
| 15 |
> to get that glaring QA issue addressed? |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
That's a very bad issue I never heard about before. |
| 18 |
I would say there is the easy workaround: we fix ACCEPT_LICENSE="* |
| 19 |
-@EULA" and this issue will never pop with a "default" configuration. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
But I don't like it because anyone setting ACCEPT_LICENSE to anything |
| 22 |
will stuck in in. |
| 23 |
So, why not creating a Generic-Free-License that could be set for |
| 24 |
packages with no clear/clean license but still free. The con of this |
| 25 |
solution is we will surely lost some information because we can set |
| 26 |
LICENSE="Generic-Free-License" or LICENSE="|| ( Generic-Free-License |
| 27 |
MyCreepyLicense )" because we need to have at least |
| 28 |
LICENSE="Generic-Free-License". |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
I see no other options. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
If anyone has an idea or suggestion... |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Mounir |
Archives