Re: [gentoo-dev] ACCEPT_LICENSE revisited

[Kevin F. Quinn]

On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 10:53:43 -0500
Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o> wrote:

> On Monday 27 November 2006 10:48, Marius Mauch wrote:
> > Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o> wrote:
> > > On Sunday 26 November 2006 18:38, Marius Mauch wrote:
> > > > Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o> wrote:
> > > > > is there a way in the new GLEP to say "never bother me with
> > > > > any license bullcrap" ?  i made sure the current
> > > > > check_license() function respected the idea of "*" so that i
> > > > > can put this in my make.conf: ACCEPT_LICENSES="*"

looks to me like check_license() will effectively ignore '*' in
ACCEPT_LICENSE:

...
    local shopts=$-
    local alic
    set -o noglob #so that bash doesn't expand "*"
    for alic in ${ACCEPT_LICENSE} ; do
        if [[ ${alic} == ${l} ]]; then
            set +o noglob; set -${shopts} #reset old shell opts
            return 0
        fi
    done
...

It then falls through to interactively requesting confirmation.

> > > > Not directly, you'd need to define a local license group
> > > > including all licenses (could automate that with a postsync
> > > > hook I guess) and use that in ACCEPT_LICENSE.
> > >
> > > in other words, your only proposed solution is a hack ?
> >
> > If you want to word it that way: yes.
>
> so why arent we providing a real solution ?

As I understand it, they're providing a solution that goes as far as it
can without violating the licenses themselves.  So you'll be able to
specify all the licenses that don't require explicit acceptance at
installation (@NOT_MUST_HAVE_READ, in the glep proposal), you just won't
be able to say '*' to include the licenses that require explicit
acceptance as well.  Since some licenses always have to be excluded,
allowing "*" would be misleading because it wouldn't be allowed to
match all licenses.  Some of the licenses that can't be wildcarded or
grouped are the games licenses from ID Software, for example.

From Chris Gianelloni, earlier in the thread:
> 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
(re. bug #152593)

I think the sort of license text this is trying to address is:

> "YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT YOU HAVE READ THIS AGREEMENT, YOU UNDERSTAND
> THIS AGREEMENT, AND UNDERSTAND THAT BY CONTINUING THE DOWNLOAD OR
> INSTALLATION OF THE SOFTWARE, BY LOADING OR RUNNING THE SOFTWARE,
> OR BY PLACING OR COPYING THE SOFTWARE ONTO YOUR COMPUTER HARD DRIVE
> OR RAM, YOU AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THIS
> AGREEMENT."

in particular the download & installation bits (loading, running being
user concerns, not sys-admin/portage concerns).  IANAL so of course I
can't say whether the proposed rules are necessary and sufficient.

-- 
Kevin F. Quinn