Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages without source code (was: Clarify the "as-is" license?)

[Rich Freeman]

On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 9:39 AM, Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote:
> We could easily solve this by adding a "binary-only" or
> "no-source-code" tag to such packages. It would be included in the
> @BINARY-REDISTRIBUTABLE license group, but not in @FREE. So such
> packages would be excluded for users with ACCEPT_LICENSE="-* @FREE".

As long as it is also marked with the BSD license I don't have a
problem with this.  The license is, in fact, BSD, so we do need to
keep that info around.

>
> Thinking about the name, "no-source-code" might be a better choice
> than "binary-only". As the GPL defines it, "The source code for a work
> means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it."
> This may be binary, e.g. for pictures in a bitmap format.

I understand the distinction adds value to our users, but I find it
amusing that a computer scientist would even try to define the term
"source code."  :)

Rich