Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo internal structure

[Matthew Kennedy]

Jason Stubbs <jasonbstubbs@×××××××××××.com> writes:

[...]

> massive amount of licenses, I suggest having reasonable defaults for
> ACCEPT_LICENSES is make.defaults.
>
> The reason for this is that the free vs non-free questioning comes up on -user
> every month or two. Each time, the answer is invariably "you wont find what
> you're looking for here". I would prefer to be able to say, "sure, Gentoo can
> do that". And it seems if the above were implemented it would be as easy as
> ACCEPT_LICENSES="-* GPL-1 GPL-2 LGPL-2 LGPL-2.1". (I'm not so familiar with
> which licenses but I'm sure someone that cares would be).
>
> As a added benefit, using something similar to the above would ensure that a
> stage3 tarball would never be 'polluted'. I'm sure there would be other
> benefits, too.

[...]

Personally, I am only interested in supporting and using free
software, so...

The best solution is just to remove support for anything non-free in
portage and to also remove any non-free software from our mirrors.
Let some other external project step up to the plate and provide a
non-free overlay if they wish.  This would put us in a position to be
the only GNU/Linux distribution out there which is truly Free
according to GNU standards (AFAIK).  Wouldn't that be a great selling
point?

Failing that, your idea is a good one, and definitely worth
implementing.  

I would like to spend some time to get that feature added to portage
(as a patch, since I'm not a portage developer).  I think it will
require others to sort through the large list of licenses in
/usr/portage/licenses and decide what can be considered Free Software.

Matt

-- 
Matthew Kennedy
Gentoo Linux Developer

--
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list