Re: [gentoo-dev] ACCEPT_LICENSE revisited

[Chris Gianelloni]

On Wed, 2006-11-22 at 15:53 +0100, Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
> > RESTRICT="interactive" should be restricted to only the contents of
> > the ebuild.  ACCEPT_LICENSE="RTCW-ETEULA" emerge enemy-territory is
> > *not* interactive,
>
> That's what I've missed then.  I didn't realise that setting
> ACCEPT_LICENSE would inhibit the interactive confirmation that the
> license has been read.  It means that ACCEPT_LICENSE is a list of
> licenses that have been accepted (which is not what I thought it was).

Basically, this allows ACCEPT_LICENSE to fill the requirements of
allowing filtering on license and *also* allows it to fill the
requirements for explicit license acceptance.  By default, all licenses
that do not require interactive and explicit acceptance are accepted.

Now, let's say you didn't want to use any BSD-licensed software.

ACCEPT_LICENSE="-BSD" would mean, in essence,
ACCEPT_LICENSE="@NON-INTERACTIVE -BSD" which would give you any package
that doesn't require interactive acceptance, except for BSD.
ACCEPT_LICENSE="-BSD RTCW-ETEULA" would allow you to install Enemy
Territory, but not Unreal Tournament 2004.

> > We don't want to support ACCEPT_LICENSE="*" including the interactive
> > licenses, since that *would* be skipping the requirements on the
> > license.  This has been discussed on the bug report, already, but
> > unless we made "*" not really equal "*", then it won't work, as it
> > won't fill the requirement that the license is accepted.
>
> OK that's fine.  I'd still like to see a positive rather than a
> negative name, but I admit I can't think of a good one to cover what
> NOT-MUST-HAVE-READ would cover.  Following the discussion about "*"
> from the bug (#152593 for those who don't know), I can see why
> you'd rather not have a positive list of restricted licenses.  The best
> name I can think of to replace "NOT-MUST-HAVE-READ", is "UNRESTRICTED".
> That clearly doesn't say anything about interactivity - it's just a
> list of all the licenses that have no restrictions on the operation of
> portage.

I'll be honest.  I don't care what it is called, so long as the
functionality is the same.  UNRESTRICTED seems fine to me, but doesn't
give a clue as to what restriction it doesn't have.  After all,
Microsoft's licenses on their corefonts would be "UNRESTRICTED" under
this license, even though it is far from unrestricted.  ;]

> > Now, I ask everyone to go read the bug before posting any more
> > comments, since most of this has been discussed quite a bit there,
> > and doesn't need to be rehashed.
>
> I didn't realise there was a bug (#152593) - I was responding to the
> posting of the GLEP and discussion I've seen here recently.  I've read
> it now...

No problem.  I thought it had been mentioned when the original posting
from Marius was done, but it might not have been.  Anyway, I'm glad that
I've now pointed people there so they can see the discussion that took
place to get us to where we are now.

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