Rémi Cardona wrote:
> Unless people dedicate time and effort, ACCEPT_LICENSE is useless.

Well, I think an incomplete tool is better than no tool at all. Even
though it's far from perfect, I still found it very useful to create a
free system. I'm certainly interested in helping to improve it.

> I'd say this is probably better suited for gentoo-project, but it's
> probably ok to start here, to gauge interest :)

Thanks, I'll subscribe to gentoo-project also.


Jeremy Olexa wrote:
> File bugs mate. Licensing is not exactly clear to all users or devs.  As 
> can be seen here[1] for dos2unix. It sounds like you care in this area, 
> so get involved.

That looks like a great starting point, thanks. The bug you mentioned
has been fixed already!


Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> The COPYRIGHT file in dos2unix is actually a 2-clause BSD license. I've
> updated the ebuild suitably.

Thanks, much appreciated.

> File a bug with some ebuilds.

It looks like somebody already has. See
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=266157. I tested the latest
ebuild, and it worked fine (see comment #59.) What would have to be done
to get it in the main tree?

> A profile is not the answer here.
> An optional DEP block || ( media-fonts/corefonts ... ) where the other
> item does resolve using ACCEPT_LICENSES is what should be used.

I'll have to read through the devmanual, thanks for the pointer.

> In your case, I propose that we add one or more stacked groups, with an
> initial content as such...

I'll start working on expanding LIBRE-FREE-1 then. I assume a bug report
would be the correct place to suggest this when I've made a decent
start?