| 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 |
Archives