1 |
On Wed, 1 Jan 2014 23:28:54 +0100 |
2 |
Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> Hi, |
5 |
> According to GLEP 23 [1], the LICENSE variable regulates the software |
6 |
> that is installed on a system. There is however some ambiguity in |
7 |
> this: should it cover the actual files installed on the system, or |
8 |
> everything that is included in the package's tarball? This question |
9 |
> was asked several times in the past and arose in bug 492424 [2] again. |
10 |
> |
11 |
> I've always preferred the first interpretation, because the second one |
12 |
> would inevitably require us to repack many tarballs, in order to keep |
13 |
> their license in @FREE. This would for example include the Linux |
14 |
> kernel, where we could no longer use deblobbing, but would have to |
15 |
> provide our own tarball with firmware blobs removed. Not sure if users |
16 |
> would be happy if we wouldn't install from pristine sources any more. |
17 |
> We also have mirror and fetch restrictions which allow us to control |
18 |
> what tarballs we distribute, independent of the LICENSE variable. |
19 |
|
20 |
I've always believed that when it comes down to it all Gentoo basically does |
21 |
is provide a link to some source code and a script to build and install it. |
22 |
Unless we violate someone's license by redistributing that source then we really |
23 |
don't have to worry about it, and as you said we already have mechanisms to |
24 |
deal with that. What the user does with that source is their business, and |
25 |
they are solely responsible for following the terms of the license(s). IIRC |
26 |
this is the stance we took back in 2006 with the cdrtools debacle [1]. |
27 |
|
28 |
So I don't understand why we would have to remove anything from the tarballs. |
29 |
Unless there's a license in there that forbids mirroring then there's no need |
30 |
to list other licenses that aren't relevant. The user wants to know what |
31 |
conditions he needs to follow to build and use the package, not what the |
32 |
tarball happen to contain. If you tell him that he can't install something |
33 |
because of a license on a piece of code that is never used, built, or |
34 |
installed, he isn't going to be very happy. |
35 |
|
36 |
> Within existing EAPIs we have only one LICENSE variable available. |
37 |
> (Extending it would be possible in future EAPIs, but we would end up |
38 |
> with a very long transition period.) USE conditional syntax is allowed |
39 |
> in LICENSE, though. So I wonder if this couldn't be used for the |
40 |
> intended purpose. For example, for specifying licenses of distfiles: |
41 |
> |
42 |
> LICENSE="<licenses of installed stuff> |
43 |
> srcdist? ( <licenses of unused stuff in distfiles> )" |
44 |
> |
45 |
> This idea was discussed within the licenses team, and the overall |
46 |
> reaction was positive. |
47 |
> |
48 |
> What do you think? |
49 |
|
50 |
Wouldn't that just prevent you from installing the package altogether? |
51 |
Some people might be okay with that, but if it's a package you need then you |
52 |
are forced to choose between either disabling the USE flag or stop filtering the |
53 |
license for that package. Either way you end up with non-distributable stuff in |
54 |
your distfiles. |
55 |
|
56 |
Maybe we could add RESTRICT=srcdist which would cause ebuilds to save |
57 |
their distfiles in a separate directory controlled by PORTDIR_NODIST or |
58 |
something. If the variable is unset then it's business as usual. |
59 |
|
60 |
|
61 |
-- |
62 |
Ryan Hill psn: dirtyepic_sk |
63 |
gcc-porting/toolchain/wxwidgets @ gentoo.org |
64 |
|
65 |
47C3 6D62 4864 0E49 8E9E 7F92 ED38 BD49 957A 8463 |