1 |
On Wed, 2005-09-21 at 18:54 +0100, José Carlos Cruz Costa wrote: |
2 |
> If it's commercial, the company in question should (and must) allow an |
3 |
> ebuild for is product, like what happens with rpms and other packages. |
4 |
> Adding commercial ebuilds to portage is like tainting the kernel with |
5 |
> binary drivers. |
6 |
|
7 |
Umm... no. An ebuild is just a recipe for fetching/building a package. |
8 |
It isn't the same as modification and redistribution (ala RPM) in any |
9 |
way. It is *nothing* like tainting the kernel and this conversation has |
10 |
*nothing* to do with what I asked an opinion on. I'm trying to ask a |
11 |
technical opinion on a technical issue. There's no need to pull in any |
12 |
political garbage into the discussion, as that only fans the flames. |
13 |
|
14 |
> Remember that are a lot of people that don't want to use that kind of |
15 |
> software. There are people that doesn't have even xorg and have to |
16 |
> sync all the ebuilds from portage. |
17 |
|
18 |
Those people are the exact reason I am wanting to do this. Right now, |
19 |
they see "License: DOOM3" when they do an "emerge -S"... I'm |
20 |
proposing they would see a "License: DOOM3 commercial" instead. |
21 |
|
22 |
Anyway, please try to refrain from hijacking my thread into some |
23 |
pseudo-political stance. I'm not making one or asking for one. I'm |
24 |
asking for acceptance on a technical solution for some users that allows |
25 |
them to make a political decision, without making any decisions for |
26 |
them. |
27 |
|
28 |
-- |
29 |
Chris Gianelloni |
30 |
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead |
31 |
Games - Developer |
32 |
Gentoo Linux |