1 |
Hi, |
2 |
|
3 |
We currently have @BINARY-REDISTRIBUTABLE license group that somewhat |
4 |
concerns RESTRICT=bindist. I think it'd be reasonable to introduce |
5 |
a matching group concerning RESTRICT=mirror. |
6 |
|
7 |
My proposition would be to add @DISTFILE-REDISTRIBUTABLE group with |
8 |
the following rules: |
9 |
|
10 |
- MUST permit redistribution of unmodified distfiles |
11 |
|
12 |
- MUST NOT require explicit approval (No items from @EULA) |
13 |
|
14 |
- MAY prohibit redistributing modified distfiles |
15 |
|
16 |
- MAY restrict the cost of redistribution |
17 |
|
18 |
|
19 |
Rationale: the main idea is to aid checking for missing |
20 |
RESTRICT="mirror". The rules are based on current bindist group but are |
21 |
more relaxed given the specific use case of our mirrors. Most notably: |
22 |
|
23 |
1. It permits licenses that prohibit redistributing modified distfiles. |
24 |
In this case, due diligence is required from developers. If this is |
25 |
prohibited, they may only add original upstream sources to SRC_URI. |
26 |
|
27 |
2. It permits restrictions on cost of redistribution, as some upstreams |
28 |
prohibit selling their products. While this renders them non-free, it |
29 |
shouldn't be a problem for our mirrors since we don't expect to sell |
30 |
stuff there ;-). |
31 |
|
32 |
Note that while technically there could be a problem with selling, say, |
33 |
Gentoo CDs with distfiles included, RESTRICT=mirror doesn't cover this |
34 |
case anyway. |
35 |
|
36 |
|
37 |
WDYT? |
38 |
|
39 |
-- |
40 |
Best regards, |
41 |
Michał Górny |