| 1 |
>>>>> On Thu, 2 Jan 2014, Ryan Hill wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> I've always believed that when it comes down to it all Gentoo |
| 4 |
> basically does is provide a link to some source code and a script |
| 5 |
> to build and install it. Unless we violate someone's license by |
| 6 |
> redistributing that source then we really don't have to worry about |
| 7 |
> it, and as you said we already have mechanisms to deal with that. |
| 8 |
> What the user does with that source is their business, and they are |
| 9 |
> solely responsible for following the terms of the license(s). |
| 10 |
> IIRC this is the stance we took back in 2006 with the cdrtools |
| 11 |
> debacle [1]. |
| 12 |
> [1] http://lwn.net/Articles/199061/ |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
I completely agree with you. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> So I don't understand why we would have to remove anything from the |
| 17 |
> tarballs. Unless there's a license in there that forbids mirroring |
| 18 |
> then there's no need to list other licenses that aren't relevant. |
| 19 |
> The user wants to know what conditions he needs to follow to build |
| 20 |
> and use the package, not what the tarball happen to contain. If you |
| 21 |
> tell him that he can't install something because of a license on a |
| 22 |
> piece of code that is never used, built, or installed, he isn't |
| 23 |
> going to be very happy. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
IMHO, we normally shouldn't remove anything from tarballs. We have |
| 26 |
mirror and fetch restrictions which should cover most cases where we |
| 27 |
are not allowed to redistribute a distfile. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
> Wouldn't that just prevent you from installing the package |
| 30 |
> altogether? Some people might be okay with that, but if it's a |
| 31 |
> package you need then you are forced to choose between either |
| 32 |
> disabling the USE flag or stop filtering the license for that |
| 33 |
> package. Either way you end up with non-distributable stuff in your |
| 34 |
> distfiles. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
Of course, the srcdist USE flag would be disabled by default, so it |
| 37 |
would make no difference for users' ACCEPT_LICENSE filtering. See it |
| 38 |
as a way to provide additional information about license terms of |
| 39 |
distfiles, or the part of distfiles that is not going to be installed. |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
> Maybe we could add RESTRICT=srcdist which would cause ebuilds to |
| 42 |
> save their distfiles in a separate directory controlled by |
| 43 |
> PORTDIR_NODIST or something. If the variable is unset then it's |
| 44 |
> business as usual. |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
Interesting idea, but how would RESTRICT=srcdist be different from |
| 47 |
RESTRICT=mirror? |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
Ulrich |
Archives