1 |
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 5:12 PM, Mounir Lamouri<volkmar@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> It's even worst when we try to use ACCEPT_LICENSE to have a free |
4 |
> operating system. |
5 |
|
6 |
FWIW: Given the state of ebuilds, I think this should never be |
7 |
attempted unless the user knows it may not be accurate[1]. We should |
8 |
not attempt to guarantee such statement, IMO. |
9 |
|
10 |
> LGPL-2.1 is free for both but LGPL-2 isn't and we can suppose, most |
11 |
> LGPL-2 licensed packages in the tree are LGPL-2+ actually. |
12 |
|
13 |
How are we, the non-lawyer types, suppose to know that? TBH, I don't |
14 |
care and am not going to put much effort beyond reading the header of |
15 |
COPYING or glancing at the HOMEPAGE to see what license they are |
16 |
using. I think you are attempting to add much complexity to ebuilds |
17 |
that will ultimately fail. Of course, you can volunteer to audit every |
18 |
license and every ebuild. Thanks in advance for that =P |
19 |
|
20 |
Thanks for putting work into making Gentoo better, I just am not |
21 |
convinced on this subject. |
22 |
|
23 |
-Jeremy |
24 |
|
25 |
[1]: Look at how long bug 268796 took to get resolved. 4 months, |
26 |
rather quickly too. Ebuilds stated GPL-2, when they were in fact BSD, |
27 |
GPL-3, LGPL-2. |