| 1 |
Hi everybody, |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
If it's commercial, the company in question should (and must) allow an |
| 4 |
ebuild for is product, like what happens with rpms and other packages. |
| 5 |
Adding commercial ebuilds to portage is like tainting the kernel with binary |
| 6 |
drivers. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Maybe a better solution comes with gensync? If companies want ebuilds, sure. |
| 9 |
They go to the "commercial" portage. Hell, even put a price on maintaining |
| 10 |
those ebuilds. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Remember that are a lot of people that don't want to use that kind of |
| 13 |
software. There are people that doesn't have even xorg and have to sync all |
| 14 |
the ebuilds from portage. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
On 9/21/05, Matthew Marlowe <mattm@g.o> wrote: |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> >> We could add a license, called "commercial" into the tree. This license |
| 20 |
> >> would look like the following. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> I would definitly support adding "commercial" as a license group as part |
| 23 |
> of |
| 24 |
> GLEP23 implementation. |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> As part of adding any new commercial license to the tree, developers would |
| 27 |
> have |
| 28 |
> to add the license to the commercial group. |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> >> While this will break completely |
| 31 |
> >> interactive ebuilds until GLEP23 is fully implemented, a user can add |
| 32 |
> >> the license to make.conf in an ACCEPT_LICENSE variable, to keep portage |
| 33 |
> >> from asking again. |
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
> We wouldnt break anything (hopefully) if we just do this as I specified |
| 36 |
> above. |
| 37 |
> |
| 38 |
> Also, I'm wondering if we truly need check_license in ebuilds. Instead, we |
| 39 |
> could |
| 40 |
> require that all licenses listed in the commercial group be manually added |
| 41 |
> to |
| 42 |
> the ACCEPT_LICENSES line /etc/make.conf before emerging. If the license |
| 43 |
> wasnt added, emerge would stop and ask the user to add the license |
| 44 |
> manually. |
| 45 |
> |
| 46 |
> Therefore, the user would be explicitely indicating their approval of the |
| 47 |
> license by |
| 48 |
> adding it. Implementation could be as simple as ACCEPT_LICENSES not |
| 49 |
> allowing |
| 50 |
> "+commercial" to be defined. It makes no sense, or at least we shouldnt |
| 51 |
> encourage |
| 52 |
> someone to say they agree to all commercial licenses so easily anyway. The |
| 53 |
> default |
| 54 |
> portage ACCEPT_LICENSE would be -commercial. |
| 55 |
> |
| 56 |
> MattM |
| 57 |
> |
| 58 |
> -- |
| 59 |
> gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
| 60 |
> |
| 61 |
> |
Archives