| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On Friday 20 February 2004 04:59 am, Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
| 5 |
> On Thu, 2004-02-19 at 17:43, Luke-Jr wrote: |
| 6 |
> > On Thursday 19 February 2004 10:18 pm, Tal Peer wrote: |
| 7 |
> > > But that's not the point. |
| 8 |
> > > The point is that the incompatability between the (new) X license and |
| 9 |
> > > the GPL plus the presence of GPL drivers for X makes the portage tree |
| 10 |
> > > tainted, license-wise.. or something along those lines. |
| 11 |
> > Any reason such drivers cannot DEPEND on XFree<3.4 (or wherever the new |
| 12 |
> > license's usage begins)? |
| 13 |
> This may be a good point and worth further analysis. However just |
| 14 |
> because we pretend that's the dependency, it isn't a real dependency in |
| 15 |
> any sense and neither the software itself nor its licenses have changed, |
| 16 |
> so legally your point may be moot. |
| 17 |
Perhaps Portage should be able to look at the licenses used by packages and |
| 18 |
detect incompatibilties then... If a DEPEND isn't enough (because people can |
| 19 |
override them), a few lines of code in src_unpack should be able to do the |
| 20 |
same thing. Similar to how some packages currently implement ACCEPT_LICENSES |
| 21 |
manually. |
| 22 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 23 |
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux) |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
iD8DBQFANZogZl/BHdU+lYMRAt5EAJwLMsqZxgelExVWCtsSpn7XB085OwCbBxKB |
| 26 |
WxRzZX1D7CIEMB70FK9B2ek= |
| 27 |
=whOZ |
| 28 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives