1 |
(Sorry for the spam g-dev, I forgot to send this to dev-announce as |
2 |
well). |
3 |
|
4 |
----- Forwarded message from Mark Loeser <halcy0n@g.o> ----- |
5 |
|
6 |
> Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 20:03:39 -0500 |
7 |
> From: Mark Loeser <halcy0n@g.o> |
8 |
> To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o |
9 |
> Subject: [gentoo-dev] New-style virtuals LICENSE variable |
10 |
> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-09) |
11 |
> |
12 |
> Just to bring to a wider audience the discussion that we had on bug |
13 |
> #140180 [1]. |
14 |
> |
15 |
> While documenting new-style virtuals for devmanual we began to discuss |
16 |
> what the LICENSE variable for the virtual ebuilds should contain. For |
17 |
> the reasons listed on the bug, we came to a conclusion that the LICENSE |
18 |
> variable should be empty for these ebuilds. |
19 |
> |
20 |
> A brief list of the reasons: |
21 |
> |
22 |
> * the ebuild doesn't really install anything |
23 |
> * the ebuild itself is already licensed under GPLv2 as is every |
24 |
> other ebuild in the tree |
25 |
> * ACCEPT_LICENSE accepts an empty LICENSE, so the virtual is |
26 |
> automatically accepted |
27 |
> * if the above were not true, we would have the fun maintainence |
28 |
> nightmare of having to list every license that could satisfy the |
29 |
> virtual in the LICENSE variable |
30 |
> |
31 |
> So long as everyone understands this, I'll go ahead and commit the new |
32 |
> documentation to devmanual and ask zmedico to commit the repoman change |
33 |
> to make sure LICENSE="" in the virtual category. |
34 |
> |
35 |
> Thanks, |
36 |
> |
37 |
> |
38 |
> [1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=140180 |
39 |
> -- |
40 |
> Mark Loeser |
41 |
> email - halcy0n AT gentoo DOT org |
42 |
> web - http://www.halcy0n.com |
43 |
|
44 |
|
45 |
|
46 |
----- End forwarded message ----- |