1 |
>>>>> On Thu, 3 Jan 2013, Rich Freeman wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 9:39 AM, Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
4 |
>> We could easily solve this by adding a "binary-only" or |
5 |
>> "no-source-code" tag to such packages. It would be included in the |
6 |
>> @BINARY-REDISTRIBUTABLE license group, but not in @FREE. So such |
7 |
>> packages would be excluded for users with ACCEPT_LICENSE="-* @FREE". |
8 |
|
9 |
> As long as it is also marked with the BSD license I don't have a |
10 |
> problem with this. The license is, in fact, BSD, so we do need to |
11 |
> keep that info around. |
12 |
|
13 |
>> Thinking about the name, "no-source-code" might be a better choice |
14 |
>> than "binary-only". As the GPL defines it, "The source code for a |
15 |
>> work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications |
16 |
>> to it." This may be binary, e.g. for pictures in a bitmap format. |
17 |
|
18 |
> I understand the distinction adds value to our users, but I find it |
19 |
> amusing that a computer scientist would even try to define the term |
20 |
> "source code." :) |
21 |
|
22 |
Coming back to this old thread. I've recently added a "no-source-code" |
23 |
license file [1]. This should be used for packages whose license would |
24 |
otherwise match @FREE, but that don't qualify as free software because |
25 |
of the missing source code. |
26 |
|
27 |
Obviously, "no-source-code" alone isn't a license, so it cannot be the |
28 |
only element of an ebuild's LICENSE variable. |
29 |
|
30 |
Ulrich |
31 |
|
32 |
[1] http://sources.gentoo.org/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/gentoo-x86/licenses/no-source-code?view=markup |