1 |
On Thu, 2005-09-22 at 11:46 -0500, Brian Harring wrote: |
2 |
> Actually, it does have to deal with glep23, and you already stated in |
3 |
> one of you emails (an "interim solution *now* since I've not heard |
4 |
> anything from GLEP23 for some time"). |
5 |
|
6 |
This is an interim solution only in that it flags a package as |
7 |
commercial until there is some kind of group created to fill that role. |
8 |
Personally, I don't think a group *should* be created for commercial |
9 |
licenses, as they are *not* equal in any way and should be judged |
10 |
individually, rather than as a group. In that case, this would be a |
11 |
permanent solution. |
12 |
|
13 |
> Further, where do you think you're going to migrate the check for this |
14 |
> license to? |
15 |
|
16 |
We wouldn't check for *this* license. We would be checking for the |
17 |
*real* license. |
18 |
|
19 |
So rather than using "check_license" in pkg_setup, we would be using |
20 |
"check_license Q3AEULA". As for where it will eventually migrate (ala |
21 |
GLEP23), I don't know, and honestly, it isn't my concern. |
22 |
|
23 |
> FYI, accept_license checks have been sitting in svn/cvs for about a |
24 |
> month, same as use deps. No, you can't use them now in a released |
25 |
> portage, but that's not much of a reason to introduce a fake license |
26 |
> I'm sitting. Further, a better approach instead of people adhocing |
27 |
> yet another band aid in the tree would be to chip in- you want glep23? |
28 |
|
29 |
Yes, I want GLEP23, but as I have said, I think this *could* be a |
30 |
permanent solution, if used properly. |
31 |
|
32 |
> help bring the *proper*, agreed upon solution to a stable portage, not |
33 |
> taking the easier route. |
34 |
|
35 |
OK. I'm going to ask a question of you. If you do an "emerge -S doom3" |
36 |
on your system, how would you know that the DOOM3 license is a |
37 |
commercial license? How would you know the difference between "doom3" |
38 |
and "doom3-demo", which happen to have the *exact* same license? How |
39 |
would you know that "doom3" requires a purchase? How would GLEP23 |
40 |
resolve this? |
41 |
|
42 |
Now, if you can give me a solution other than the one that I have |
43 |
provided, then I'll gladly accept it. As it stands, I only see one way |
44 |
to provide this information to our users, and that is to add it |
45 |
*somehow* into the ebuilds. This means either via LICENSE or some new |
46 |
variable. The advantage to using LICENSE is that it works *now* on all |
47 |
versions of portage. It also works *now* on packages.gentoo.org's |
48 |
pages. |
49 |
|
50 |
> The suggested intention of this fake license is also a bit daft imo; |
51 |
> what is LICENSE, the metadata? The license the underlying pkg is |
52 |
> released under. Commercial is supposed to be mean "it costs money", |
53 |
> well, how are you going to deal with opera? Flip off the commercial |
54 |
> license now? |
55 |
|
56 |
On the ebuilds for the versions released as free versions, yes. |
57 |
|
58 |
> The original proposed angle (glep23 implementation isn't here) is |
59 |
> jumping the gun, and the angle of "it indicates it costs money" isn't |
60 |
> proper either. |
61 |
> |
62 |
> You want to indicate that this *specific* pkg costs money |
63 |
> (something not related to the license it's released under I might |
64 |
> add)? Stick it in metadata.xml or DESCRIPTION. |
65 |
|
66 |
Description is the worst place for it, IMO. I'd have no problem |
67 |
sticking it in metadata.xml, either, but tell me how users are to get |
68 |
that information? As it stands now, the only data in metadata.xml that |
69 |
is used for *anything* is the herd/maintainer information, and that |
70 |
information isn't available from portage, but only from external |
71 |
3rd-party applications and jeeves. |
72 |
|
73 |
> License has a specific meaning- aside from the fact you're shoving an |
74 |
> additional license requirement on people when glep23 hits, you're also |
75 |
> blocking anyone from using that as a license group do to the fact you |
76 |
> already introduced a psuedo license in instead of a *proper* groupping. |
77 |
|
78 |
As I've stated, there should not be a commercial grouping, as each |
79 |
license is *not* equal in any way other than being commercial. Things |
80 |
like GPL-COMPATIBLE share something. Commercial licenses can be |
81 |
absolutely diverse. |
82 |
|
83 |
> So... my 2 cents? No (was obvious already, wasn't it? :) |
84 |
|
85 |
Great. Give me another way to let the user know that the package |
86 |
requires a purchase or obtaining a license that we cannot provide them. |
87 |
|
88 |
-- |
89 |
Chris Gianelloni |
90 |
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead |
91 |
Games - Developer |
92 |
Gentoo Linux |