Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Chris Gianelloni <wolf31o2@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] "Commercial" software in portage
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 18:02:06
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] "Commercial" software in portage by Matthew Marlowe
1 On Wed, 2005-09-21 at 10:31 -0700, Matthew Marlowe wrote:
2 > >> We could add a license, called "commercial" into the tree. This license
3 > >> would look like the following.
4 >
5 > I would definitly support adding "commercial" as a license group as part of
6 > GLEP23 implementation.
8 This isn't so much talking about GLEP23, but doing an interim
9 implementation *now* since I've not heard anything from GLEP23 for some
10 time.
12 > As part of adding any new commercial license to the tree, developers would have
13 > to add the license to the commercial group.
14 >
15 > >> While this will break completely
16 > >> interactive ebuilds until GLEP23 is fully implemented, a user can add
17 > >> the license to make.conf in an ACCEPT_LICENSE variable, to keep portage
18 > >> from asking again.
19 >
20 > We wouldnt break anything (hopefully) if we just do this as I specified above.
22 Except GLEP23 isn't implemented, so we cannot rely on it.
24 > Also, I'm wondering if we truly need check_license in ebuilds. Instead, we could
26 Yes. GLEP23 support is not in portage yet. Certain packages (which
27 will rename nameless, *cough*enemy-territory*cough*) *require* that the
28 user accept the license before it is installed.
30 > require that all licenses listed in the commercial group be manually added to
31 > the ACCEPT_LICENSES line /etc/make.conf before emerging. If the license
32 > wasnt added, emerge would stop and ask the user to add the license manually.
34 This is almost what check_license does, except it doesn't require the
35 user to add it manually, just accept the license.
37 > Therefore, the user would be explicitely indicating their approval of the license by
38 > adding it. Implementation could be as simple as ACCEPT_LICENSES not allowing
39 > "+commercial" to be defined. It makes no sense, or at least we shouldnt encourage
40 > someone to say they agree to all commercial licenses so easily anyway. The default
41 > portage ACCEPT_LICENSE would be -commercial.
43 Anyway, you didn't answer my question, at all.
45 My question is about adding a "commercial" license to portage *now* and
46 adding it to relevant ebuilds so it shows up when users do an "emerge
47 -S" or look in now, not when GLEP23 finally
48 rolls around. At that time, I would expect there to be a proper
49 implementation. Of course, I also think that there's no point in
50 grouping commercial licenses at all if we aren't going to allow
51 acceptance of them all as a group. Commercial licenses are individual,
52 so they should stay that way, but that's a discussion for another
53 thread... ;]
55 --
56 Chris Gianelloni
57 Release Engineering - Strategic Lead
58 Games - Developer
59 Gentoo Linux


File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] "Commercial" software in portage Lance Albertson <ramereth@g.o>