| 1 |
>>>>> On Thu, 25 Jul 2013, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> Now we could add more pseudo-licenses to ACCEPT_LICENSE to |
| 4 |
> distinguish source code under BSD license from binaries under BSD |
| 5 |
> license, or use some other ebuild variable. This is what ulm |
| 6 |
> suggests if I understand correctly. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
I suggest that we add exactly one "no-source-code" pseudo license. |
| 9 |
So binary-only BSD, MIT, etc. packages would be marked "BSD |
| 10 |
no-source-code" or "MIT no-source-code". Since the "no-source-code" |
| 11 |
license wouldn't be a member of the @FREE license group, installation |
| 12 |
of such packages would be prevented with ACCEPT_LICENSE="@FREE". |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Ulrich |
Archives