| 1 |
On 01/01/2014 09:38 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 9:19 PM, Michael Orlitzky <mjo@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> |
| 4 |
>> Is there a real example where the license matters for something |
| 5 |
>> redistributed to yourself? |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Well, "yourself" is a loose term. If I were to redistribute MS |
| 8 |
> Windows across 300 PCs for my employer I suspect some people would |
| 9 |
> have something to say about that. Heck, the RIAA wants you to re-buy |
| 10 |
> music if you want to load a song on an mp3 player that you already own |
| 11 |
> on CD. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> However, for most packages in the tree the issue is going to be how |
| 14 |
> "free" as in whatever you want the package to be. If we're going to |
| 15 |
> have ACCEPT_LICENSE in the first place it seems like this is just a |
| 16 |
> logical extension of it. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
But Gentoo can't distribute MS Windows to you in the first place. Is |
| 19 |
there a package that Gentoo can distribute to you, but you can't |
| 20 |
redistribute within your organization? |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
As I said in another reply, more license metadata is good and we should |
| 23 |
make it available. But a USE flag that changes the meaning of an |
| 24 |
important global variable is a little hacky, especially if it doesn't |
| 25 |
solve a real problem within Gentoo/Portage. If the problems are |
| 26 |
theoretical (or aren't Gentoo package management problems), maybe it's |
| 27 |
better to wait and do it right in an EAPI. |
Archives