Re: [gentoo-dev] ACCEPT_LICENSE revisited

[Jason Stubbs]

On Sunday 19 November 2006 06:25, Brian Harring wrote:
> Left out that if it's unset, it should default to ACCEPT_LICENSE=* ,
> meaning no license filtering.

[...]

> > Backwards Compatibility
> > =======================
> >
> > There should be no change to the user experience without the user
> > explicitly choosing to do so.  This mandates that the
> > configuration variable be named ``ACCEPT_LICENSE`` as some users may
> > already have it set due to ebuilds using ``eutil.eclass``'s
> > implementation.  It also mandates that the default ``ACCEPT_LICENSE`` be
> > set to ``@NON-INTERACTIVE`` in the main gentoo repository as there will
> > be no internal default in portage.
>
> The current default in portage however is that of ACCEPT_LICENSE=*;
> since portage doesn't yet filter on licenses, and since interactive
> ebuilds already exist, _that_ is the default.
>
> Finally, NON-INTERACTIVE shouldn't be a license group;
> RESTRICT=interactive is the route there; you can have gpl software
> distributed on cds that must be interactive (feed cds in as
> requested).
>
> The only solution there would to be to invent a fake license group for
> it and tag it in... which is not what license is about.
>
> Interactivity is a seperate thing from license; keep it that way.

You're missing the point. It is nothing to do with interactivity. It is to do 
with check_license and ebuilds for packages that must have their license 
explicitly accepted. In other words there should be no "*" and the default 
ACCEPT_LICENSE should default to everything except ebuilds that are currently 
using check_license. The NON-INTERACTIVE group specified in the original GLEP 
specified that set.

--
Jason Stubbs
-- 
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list