Re: [gentoo-dev] License for Google Chrome

[Rich Freeman]

On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 6:51 PM, Mike Gilbert <floppym@g.o> wrote:
> Perhaps I used the wrong term here. I mean that 2.2 (B) allows the
> user to download and install the software without having to explicitly
> click the "Agree" button on the software download page.

I did not review the Chrome license, but speaking generally:

1.  RESTRICT=mirror must be used if anything in the license prevents
free redistribution.  I'd suggest that if the license isn't OSDL
approved give it a VERY close look.  Simply mirroring a file is a
violation of copyright law, and so Gentoo MUST accept license terms to
do it.

2.  RESTRICT=fetch generally is only needed if there is no reliable
way to fetch a file (such as if upstream doesn't provide a stable URL,
sticks the file behind an interactive website, etc).  Gentoo does not
need to accept a license to allow users to fetch a file directly, so
the EULA/license in itself doesn't necessarily force us to use
RESTRICT=fetch.  Most of the time this is a moot point, as upstreams
that are concerned with forcing people to accept EULAs tend to not
provide stable URLs.  If upstream raised a stink over using a stable
URL we would probably give serious thought to blocking fetches - in
theory not doing so is legal, but many people have been successfully
sued for providing links, or for deep-linking.

Rich