| 1 |
Chris Gianelloni wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, 2005-09-21 at 10:31 -0700, Matthew Marlowe wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>>>>We could add a license, called "commercial" into the tree. This license |
| 5 |
>>>>would look like the following. |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
>>I would definitly support adding "commercial" as a license group as part of |
| 8 |
>>GLEP23 implementation. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> This isn't so much talking about GLEP23, but doing an interim |
| 12 |
> implementation *now* since I've not heard anything from GLEP23 for some |
| 13 |
> time. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
>>As part of adding any new commercial license to the tree, developers would have |
| 17 |
>>to add the license to the commercial group. |
| 18 |
>> |
| 19 |
>> |
| 20 |
>>>> While this will break completely |
| 21 |
>>>>interactive ebuilds until GLEP23 is fully implemented, a user can add |
| 22 |
>>>>the license to make.conf in an ACCEPT_LICENSE variable, to keep portage |
| 23 |
>>>>from asking again. |
| 24 |
>> |
| 25 |
>>We wouldnt break anything (hopefully) if we just do this as I specified above. |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> Except GLEP23 isn't implemented, so we cannot rely on it. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Is this just a one-off implementation until GLEP 23 is implemented, or |
| 31 |
something that will complement it? Whats going to happen to this data |
| 32 |
after GLEP23 gets implemented? I'd hate to see something added simply |
| 33 |
because its a quick one-off solution to make something work. I'd rather |
| 34 |
see people focus on the actual GLEP and moving it along. Of course, if |
| 35 |
this data will just be an added feature of GLEP23, I don't see a problem. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
-- |
| 38 |
Lance Albertson <ramereth@g.o> |
| 39 |
Gentoo Infrastructure | Operations Manager |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
--- |
| 42 |
GPG Public Key: <http://www.ramereth.net/lance.asc> |
| 43 |
Key fingerprint: 0423 92F3 544A 1282 5AB1 4D07 416F A15D 27F4 B742 |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
ramereth/irc.freenode.net |
Archives