1 |
On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 8:51 PM, Michael Orlitzky <mjo@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> In essence, I don't want to *use* code that isn't @FREE. This includes |
3 |
> the installed files, of course, but also the build system (that I use |
4 |
> temporarily). We could generalize this to "any file accessed during |
5 |
> emerge" to be on the safe side. That ensures that if I need to modify |
6 |
> (and redistribute) any part of the software that I use, I can. |
7 |
> |
8 |
> What use case is there for having the LICENSE apply to anything else? |
9 |
|
10 |
If you want to redistribute the source tarball (such as on an internal |
11 |
mirror) then you might care what license pertains to the tarball. |
12 |
RESTRICT=mirror only prevents mirrors using the standard Gentoo |
13 |
software from distributing a file. If you just have a server fetch |
14 |
sources and share distfiles via NFS/rsync/etc then you're sharing |
15 |
everything. I actually use this approach for my VMs/etc to cut down |
16 |
on network traffic and mirror load (my main Gentoo box is listed as |
17 |
the first mirror, and also is used for SYNC). |
18 |
|
19 |
> I think a better solution here, since these files are *installed*, is to |
20 |
> introduce a new local flag (e.g. unfreeblobs) for the kernel that would |
21 |
> append to LICENSE by the mechanism described below. |
22 |
|
23 |
Well, sure, any USE flag that controls the installation of the blobs |
24 |
should append the appropriate string to LICENSE. However, that is a |
25 |
separate (and also important) issue. |
26 |
|
27 |
I'm trying to think of any issues the new approach would cause and I |
28 |
can't think of any - it seems like a good move to me. Those who don't |
29 |
do anything get the current behavior, and those who care about |
30 |
redistributing distfiles can filter licenses if they care to do so. |
31 |
This also settles the ambiguity in what LICENSE means. It is probably |
32 |
worth noting that most packages wouldn't be impacted by this. |
33 |
|
34 |
Has anybody tested whether ACCEPT_LICENSE handles USE conditionals |
35 |
correctly? If it is in PMS and it doesn't than that would be a |
36 |
Portage bug, but we should probably be aware of what it does before |
37 |
setting it all over the tree. |
38 |
|
39 |
Rich |