Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Enemy Territory and Gentoo

[Chris Gianelloni]

On Mon, 2003-09-22 at 10:31, Dhruba Bandopadhyay wrote:
> Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > It appears that the only course of action we have left to remain good
> > members of the community is to remove all id games from portage.  If
> > there is someone else I should talk to about this, let me know so I can
> > contact them.  We appear to be at an impass since neither of us appears
> > to be getting through to the other.
> >
> > To be honest, I simply don't see how if I were to change the ebuild to
> > display the EULA and force the user to accept before continuing does not
> > meet the licensing requirements.  Since I have repeated this and gotten
> > no real response on it specifically other than you repeating about a
> > wrapper, I am assuming that this is not acceptable to meet the license.
>
> Hello
>
> Being an avid enemy territory addict I'm very distressed to hear that
> idgames on gentoo including enemy territory are becoming more of an
> impossibility as exhibited by the above email.  Please allow me to make a
> suggestion or two.
>
> What is required here is some sort of explicit and interactive consent of
> the EULA by the gentoo user.  This can be done in two ways.
>
> (1) Add an F flag to the ebuild thereby forcing the user to download the
> installer independently of portage and thereby agree to EULA online somewhere.

You don't have to agree to an EULA to download the game.  The EULA is
only displayed when running the installer.

> (2) Add an environment variable so that the package will only install when
> the environment variable is set correctly.  So, when the ebuild is
> executed initially it will output a message saying "Please read the EULA
> on <URL> and extend your explicit consent by doing the following".
>
> 	AGREE_EULA="yes" emerge enemy-territory
>
> Personally, I am tempted to go with the second option above as this  not
> only fulfills the EULA requirement but also makes the ebuild
> non-interactive which in my opinion all ebuilds should most definitely be.

I've removed the ebuild and have no plans on putting it back in portage
unless some agreement can be made between id software and the games
team.  Actually, this has prompted me to also remove RTCW and the quake3
based games, since they all have this same problem.

> (3) The other non-interactive option is as mentioned in the previous email
> adding a wrapper to the main executable which asks for consent on first
> run and then stores evidence of consent on the local filesystem.  All
> future executions of the game proceed as normal.

This isn't what Timothy was proposing.  He was proposing a wrapper on
the *installer*, which does us zero good and serves no purpose other
than to add another layer of useless cruft.

> I look forward to receiving feedback on these propositions and trust that
> a mutual agreement shall be reached between all concerned parties.

Yes, an agreement was reached.  I removed the ebuilds from portage.

I had already created a new ebuild and a new function for eutils which
would display the license and force the user to accept before
continuing.  Apparently, this was not acceptable to id.  In fact,
nothing was acceptable other than running the installer itself.  The
problem with this is #1. it is interactive only, #2. it requires gtk
(even for a server-only install), #3. we have no control over the
installation path, so portage cannot track the files.

Having an ebuild that simply wraps the installer is pointless since we
would only be wrapping the installer.  There is no tracking of the
actual game files.  This makes the installation no different
functionally than a user downloading the game themselves and running the
installer.  For this reason, I have decided to remove the ebuild
entirely.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Developer, Gentoo Linux
Games Team

Is your power animal a pengiun?