| 1 |
On Mon, 2006-11-20 at 12:47 +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 19:31:54 -0800 Donnie Berkholz |
| 3 |
> <dberkholz@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> | Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 5 |
> | > On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 12:13:33 -0800 Donnie Berkholz |
| 6 |
> | > <dberkholz@g.o> wrote: |
| 7 |
> | > | Which part of GLEP 23 does it break? Please show me the text. |
| 8 |
> | > |
| 9 |
> | > Cut the crap, Donnie. We all know you're not that stupid, so stop |
| 10 |
> | > pretending you are. |
| 11 |
> | |
| 12 |
> | How is it stupid to ask that you cite actual text from a policy when |
| 13 |
> | you say I'm violating it? I think this makes the third time I've |
| 14 |
> | asked now without ever seeing any concrete evidence. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> You make *the entire GLEP* unworkable. Now every user who wants to |
| 17 |
> cover their ass legally has to go through and check every single one of |
| 18 |
> those identical licences one by one. That's something that's supposed |
| 19 |
> to be done centrally, by the people who maintain the packages. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
I'm sorry, but I have to call bullshit on this. If the licenses are |
| 22 |
listed as accepted by default, which they will be, how exactly does this |
| 23 |
screw over *any* users? Besides that, there can be a license group for |
| 24 |
them all, so even the people using ACCEPT_LICENSE="-*" will be able to |
| 25 |
add just the single group for them all. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
Chris Gianelloni |
| 29 |
Release Engineering Strategic Lead |
| 30 |
Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams |
| 31 |
Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee |
| 32 |
Gentoo Foundation |
Archives