1 |
On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 9:50 PM, Michael Orlitzky <mjo@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> |
3 |
> But Gentoo can't distribute MS Windows to you in the first place. Is |
4 |
> there a package that Gentoo can distribute to you, but you can't |
5 |
> redistribute within your organization? |
6 |
|
7 |
Well, ACCEPT_LICENSE is about more than just whether a package is |
8 |
USE=bindist. There is also nothing that prevents Portage from |
9 |
conceptually installing something like Windows (this stuff isn't |
10 |
limited to the main portage tree, and we have had proprietary software |
11 |
in portage before (user had to provide their own distfiles)). However, |
12 |
I would tend to think that any package with RESTRICT=mirror would have |
13 |
potential legal concerns, since we obviously set it for a reason. The |
14 |
specifics of any particular package are of course going to vary. |
15 |
|
16 |
> |
17 |
> As I said in another reply, more license metadata is good and we should |
18 |
> make it available. But a USE flag that changes the meaning of an |
19 |
> important global variable is a little hacky, especially if it doesn't |
20 |
> solve a real problem within Gentoo/Portage. If the problems are |
21 |
> theoretical (or aren't Gentoo package management problems), maybe it's |
22 |
> better to wait and do it right in an EAPI. |
23 |
|
24 |
Well, the LICENSE that applied to the installed files for a package |
25 |
could very well change due to USE flags (for example, a de-blobbed |
26 |
kernel). I don't think you're disputing that, and I do realize that |
27 |
this is a bit more "virtual." |
28 |
|
29 |
Rich |