1 |
On Thu, Sep 22, 2005 at 09:30:20AM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote: |
2 |
> On Wed, 2005-09-21 at 17:55 -0500, Lance Albertson wrote: |
3 |
> > Is this just a one-off implementation until GLEP 23 is implemented, or |
4 |
> > something that will complement it? Whats going to happen to this data |
5 |
> > after GLEP23 gets implemented? I'd hate to see something added simply |
6 |
> > because its a quick one-off solution to make something work. I'd rather |
7 |
> > see people focus on the actual GLEP and moving it along. Of course, if |
8 |
> > this data will just be an added feature of GLEP23, I don't see a problem. |
9 |
> |
10 |
> This really has nothing to do with GLEP23, as it isn't related to any |
11 |
> kind of grouping, or ACCEPT_LICENSE. It is simply a marker to say to |
12 |
> our users: "Hey, you have to buy this for it to work." That is |
13 |
> something that GLEP23 does not provide for in any way. |
14 |
|
15 |
Actually, it does have to deal with glep23, and you already stated in |
16 |
one of you emails (an "interim solution *now* since I've not heard |
17 |
anything from GLEP23 for some time"). |
18 |
|
19 |
Further, where do you think you're going to migrate the check for this |
20 |
license to? |
21 |
|
22 |
FYI, accept_license checks have been sitting in svn/cvs for about a |
23 |
month, same as use deps. No, you can't use them now in a released |
24 |
portage, but that's not much of a reason to introduce a fake license |
25 |
I'm sitting. Further, a better approach instead of people adhocing |
26 |
yet another band aid in the tree would be to chip in- you want glep23? |
27 |
help bring the *proper*, agreed upon solution to a stable portage, not |
28 |
taking the easier route. |
29 |
|
30 |
The suggested intention of this fake license is also a bit daft imo; |
31 |
what is LICENSE, the metadata? The license the underlying pkg is |
32 |
released under. Commercial is supposed to be mean "it costs money", |
33 |
well, how are you going to deal with opera? Flip off the commercial |
34 |
license now? |
35 |
|
36 |
The original proposed angle (glep23 implementation isn't here) is |
37 |
jumping the gun, and the angle of "it indicates it costs money" isn't |
38 |
proper either. |
39 |
|
40 |
You want to indicate that this *specific* pkg costs money |
41 |
(something not related to the license it's released under I might |
42 |
add)? Stick it in metadata.xml or DESCRIPTION. |
43 |
|
44 |
License has a specific meaning- aside from the fact you're shoving an |
45 |
additional license requirement on people when glep23 hits, you're also |
46 |
blocking anyone from using that as a license group do to the fact you |
47 |
already introduced a psuedo license in instead of a *proper* groupping. |
48 |
|
49 |
So... my 2 cents? No (was obvious already, wasn't it? :) |
50 |
~harring |