Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Chris Gianelloni <wolf31o2@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: [gentoo-dev] "Commercial" software in portage
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 13:54:58
Message-Id: 1127310677.30787.28.camel@cgianelloni.nuvox.net
1 I had a nice little discussion with someone today about commercial
2 software in portage. His basic complaint was that there's no way to
3 distinguish what software is commercial and what is not. The licenses
4 are not always apparent in these things. Anyway, I had originally
5 thought this to be something for metadata.xml, and if it is decided that
6 is still the best place for it, then I'm all for it, but I'd like to
7 present an alternate proposal.
8
9 We could add a license, called "commercial" into the tree. This license
10 would look like the following.
11
12 "This is a license created by Gentoo to indicate that a package is of a
13 commercial nature. The reasoning behind this is so users are aware that
14 a package might not be in a 100% functional state without some form of
15 user interaction, such as the addition of data files or a CD key after
16 installation.
17
18 This package, or portions of this package, fall under one or more
19 commercial licenses and is not free."
20
21 Basically, we just add "commercial" to LICENSE in the ebuild, and (if
22 wanted or necessary) add "check_license $licese_required_to_be_accepted"
23 to pkg_setup on the ebuild. While this will break completely
24 interactive ebuilds until GLEP23 is fully implemented, a user can add
25 the license to make.conf in an ACCEPT_LICENSE variable, to keep portage
26 from asking again. This means when a user does an "emerge -S" they will
27 see the nice little "commercial" listed under licenses, which will
28 hopefully trigger to them that this package is not free. Another
29 possible addition is a "commercial-free" license, which would cover
30 things like America's Army and Enemy Territory (I'm sure there are
31 others, but I know of these two) that are free for users to use, but are
32 still commercial software.
33
34 This would require us to make some modifications to a few ebuilds,
35 though I know that most of the ebuilds using check_license are
36 maintained by me. I'm willing to make all necessary changes in the tree
37 for this to be seamless for our users. The only packages which will
38 interactively ask the user to accept a license are the ones that do so
39 currently.
40
41 So now I ask, can anyone think of a reason not to do this, or a better
42 way to go about it?
43
44 --
45 Chris Gianelloni
46 Release Engineering - Strategic Lead
47 Games - Developer
48 Gentoo Linux

Attachments

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

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] "Commercial" software in portage "Paweł Madej" <linux@××××××××.info>
Re: [gentoo-dev] "Commercial" software in portage Marius Mauch <genone@g.o>