Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Matthew Marlowe <mattm@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev <gentoo-dev@l.g.o>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] "Commercial" software in portage
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 17:31:32
Message-Id: 20050921172801.42BBEF5C20@mail.deploylinux.net
1 >> We could add a license, called "commercial" into the tree. This license
2 >> would look like the following.
3
4 I would definitly support adding "commercial" as a license group as part of
5 GLEP23 implementation.
6
7 As part of adding any new commercial license to the tree, developers would have
8 to add the license to the commercial group.
9
10 >> While this will break completely
11 >> interactive ebuilds until GLEP23 is fully implemented, a user can add
12 >> the license to make.conf in an ACCEPT_LICENSE variable, to keep portage
13 >> from asking again.
14
15 We wouldnt break anything (hopefully) if we just do this as I specified above.
16
17 Also, I'm wondering if we truly need check_license in ebuilds. Instead, we could
18 require that all licenses listed in the commercial group be manually added to
19 the ACCEPT_LICENSES line /etc/make.conf before emerging. If the license
20 wasnt added, emerge would stop and ask the user to add the license manually.
21
22 Therefore, the user would be explicitely indicating their approval of the license by
23 adding it. Implementation could be as simple as ACCEPT_LICENSES not allowing
24 "+commercial" to be defined. It makes no sense, or at least we shouldnt encourage
25 someone to say they agree to all commercial licenses so easily anyway. The default
26 portage ACCEPT_LICENSE would be -commercial.
27
28 MattM
29
30 --
31 gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] "Commercial" software in portage "José Carlos Cruz Costa" <meetra@×××××.com>
Re: [gentoo-dev] "Commercial" software in portage Chris Gianelloni <wolf31o2@g.o>