| 1 |
On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 3:24 PM, Ian Stakenvicius <axs@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> IUSE="bindist" tends to be for adjusting a particular package so that |
| 3 |
> it either is generic and CAN be binary-distributable, or will build as |
| 4 |
> upstream intended (with, for instance, upstream branding) and |
| 5 |
> therefore is not. Right? |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
Correct. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> So, in essence, the use flag can allow for an exception of a 'bindist' |
| 11 |
> LICENSE. Would it make more sense then to have LICENSE= contents |
| 12 |
> controlled conditionally? ie: |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
I'm not sure if this is really necessary. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
If a user doesn't want to accidentally install something that isn't |
| 18 |
redistributable they can start with |
| 19 |
ACCEPT_LICENSE=@BINARY-REDISTRIBUTABLE, which already exists. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Then they can augment that by manually overriding it for packages |
| 22 |
where they've decided they're not impacted, or where they're using |
| 23 |
USE=-bindist. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
There are really only a small number of situations where this will |
| 26 |
happen. I'm not sure if we need to implement conditional licensing |
| 27 |
with a pseudo-license on top of that just to cover them. The license |
| 28 |
itself doesn't actually change when you USE -bindist - you're simply |
| 29 |
complying with it. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Rich |
Archives