| 1 |
Hello all, |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
This question was posted to -user as well and has turned into a huge |
| 4 |
discussion. It seems that the key concern of the original poster is the free |
| 5 |
vs non-free bit. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
Several weeks (months?) ago there was a discussion of licenses with regard to |
| 8 |
id's software. In that, I suggested that a user need to accept all licenses |
| 9 |
before being able to install software. That was disregarded due to the fact |
| 10 |
that there are 100s (297) licenses in portage. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
However, users being forced to accept a license was implemented for the |
| 13 |
specific case of id's software. I again propose that this be made the default |
| 14 |
for all ebuilds (through portage rather than each ebuild). To counter the |
| 15 |
massive amount of licenses, I suggest having reasonable defaults for |
| 16 |
ACCEPT_LICENSES is make.defaults. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
The reason for this is that the free vs non-free questioning comes up on -user |
| 19 |
every month or two. Each time, the answer is invariably "you wont find what |
| 20 |
you're looking for here". I would prefer to be able to say, "sure, Gentoo can |
| 21 |
do that". And it seems if the above were implemented it would be as easy as |
| 22 |
ACCEPT_LICENSES="-* GPL-1 GPL-2 LGPL-2 LGPL-2.1". (I'm not so familiar with |
| 23 |
which licenses but I'm sure someone that cares would be). |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
As a added benefit, using something similar to the above would ensure that a |
| 26 |
stage3 tarball would never be 'polluted'. I'm sure there would be other |
| 27 |
benefits, too. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Regards, |
| 30 |
Jason |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives