Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Mark Loeser <halcy0n@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o, gentoo-dev-announce@l.g.o
Subject: [gentoo-dev] New-style virtuals LICENSE variable
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 01:31:31
Message-Id: 20071217012826.GB9150@aerie.halcy0n.com
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 -----