| 1 |
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 12:50:01 -0500 |
| 2 |
Grant Goodyear <g2boojum@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Marius Mauch wrote: [Thu Oct 26 2006, 12:02:59PM CDT] |
| 5 |
> > Ok, as there is currently a lot of work going on for GLEP 23 |
| 6 |
> > (licese based visibility filtering aka ACCEPT_LICENSE) the topic of |
| 7 |
> > license groups came up, in particular the way how they should be |
| 8 |
> > (technically) defined. |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > The simplest way is a line based format |
| 11 |
> > <groupname> <license1> ... <licenseN> |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> At the risk of reopening a large can of worms, can somebody explain to |
| 14 |
> me why the license groups idea won't run into the same conceptual |
| 15 |
> issues that derailed GLEP 29 (USE groups)? Am I missing something |
| 16 |
> obvious? |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Maybe my memory is wrong, but wasn't the problem only that people |
| 19 |
couldn't agree on one set of semantics for negations and being afraid of |
| 20 |
confusing users? In that case I don't see a big problem as long as the |
| 21 |
semantics are clearly defined, as most users will probably stick with |
| 22 |
just one predefined group (if they use this feature at all) adjusted by |
| 23 |
a few handpicked licenses. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Marius |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be |
| 31 |
Light.' And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better. |
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives