| 1 |
On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 4:06 AM Neil Bothwick <neil@××××××××××.uk> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> As Andreas mentioned, the LICENSE setting is probably a more reliable way |
| 4 |
> of excluding such packages. By only allowing open source licences you |
| 5 |
> prevent the installation of proprietary binary packages. You can still |
| 6 |
> install the *-bin packages as they are mostly convenience packages to |
| 7 |
> save you lengthy compilation by using the developer's provided binary |
| 8 |
> packages of open source software. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
There might be the really odd case of something that has an FOSS |
| 11 |
license but which is available binary-only, either because it was |
| 12 |
never packaged for Gentoo in source form, or because it actually is a |
| 13 |
binary by nature. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
These are pretty rare and honestly I'm not sure if we have any in our |
| 16 |
repos. I do remember seeing the odd case of some project that uses |
| 17 |
GPL for its license but there is no source. It wasn't that there |
| 18 |
wasn't source code available - the project didn't have any source. |
| 19 |
Such as using a GPL license for a photograph or something (not what it |
| 20 |
was intended for, but probably not illegal). |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
In any case, if you set your license filters appropriately, and |
| 23 |
bindist appropriately, you will end up with a system that completely |
| 24 |
complies with your license requirements, binary packages or otherwise, |
| 25 |
so you won't get in trouble for redistribution/etc. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
Rich |
Archives