| 1 |
hasufell schrieb: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> I don't see the problem. BSD, MIT, Apache-2.0 are all GPL-Compatible and |
| 4 |
> not even a pure GNU system bans them. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
This is not a problem technology wise, but it means that ACCEPT_LICENSE |
| 7 |
changes cannot ensure that we deliver only free software. Sourceless binaries |
| 8 |
are by definition not free, even if their license is free. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Now we could add more pseudo-licenses to ACCEPT_LICENSE to distinguish source |
| 11 |
code under BSD license from binaries under BSD license, or use some other |
| 12 |
ebuild variable. This is what ulm suggests if I understand correctly. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Note that this can also extend to fonts, artwork, firmware, etc. which does |
| 15 |
not come in the preferred form for modification (this what is Debian does). |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Best regards, |
| 19 |
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn |
Archives