| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On Thursday 27 November 2003 04:12 pm, Jason Wever wrote: |
| 5 |
> My $0.02 is that if this gets implemented, it should be put in so that the |
| 6 |
> default behavior is like portage is now, |
| 7 |
Since Portage as it is right now doesn't pay any attention to licenses, its |
| 8 |
legality could be questioned (as with the games issue before?) |
| 9 |
> and if you choose to restrict |
| 10 |
> yourself to only free software or other licensing scheme, you can make the |
| 11 |
> necessary changes yourself. Otherwise you will have a ton of users asking |
| 12 |
> "why can't i emerge package foo?", or filing bugs because of this, etc. |
| 13 |
If Portage displays a clear enough message, there shouldn't be a problem with |
| 14 |
this... |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
>From a support perspective, if this gets implemented, I'm forwarding all |
| 17 |
> of these questions, bugs, etc to the "free and only free" software folks. |
| 18 |
> Please dont' take away one "freedom" for another. |
| 19 |
As long as there is an option (editing the ACCEPT_LICENSES), there is no |
| 20 |
freedom being removed. |
| 21 |
- -- |
| 22 |
Luke-Jr |
| 23 |
Developer, Gentoo Linux |
| 24 |
http://www.gentoo.org/ |
| 25 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 26 |
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux) |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
iD8DBQE/xiP7Zl/BHdU+lYMRAuo5AJ4jjBD+GVz+jdH5dXB7PXbOcmfpRQCfUKdo |
| 29 |
IOKkz00clG7LuanKt4NEYEY= |
| 30 |
=2Bgc |
| 31 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives