[gentoo-dev] Enemy Territory Strikes Back

[gentoo-dev] Enemy Territory Strikes Back

[Dhruba Bandopadhyay]

Hello

 From cvs changelogs I notice ID based based including ET are back in 
portage and also that they now have a licence check.

-- So what dialogue resulted in them returning and what happened exactly?

-- What form does the licence check take exactly in theory to save me 
having to re-emerge ET?  Are ebuilds interactive for the first time ever 
in the lifetime of the operating system?

-- Will this licence check now serve as the default method of handling 
EULA's for future licenced games?

My curiosity got the better of me so I had to ask :)

With regards
Dhruba Bandopadhyay


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Enemy Territory Strikes Back

[Jason Stubbs]

On Wednesday 08 October 2003 21:22, Dhruba Bandopadhyay wrote:
> -- Will this licence check now serve as the default method of handling
> EULA's for future licenced games?

I'm wondering about this for all software. In my installation and upgrade of 
Gentoo, I've never seen anything telling me that I have to accept X license 
to use Y software. If there has been, it has been barely noticable.

I think that forcing users to accept licenses is a Good Thing. Once a license 
is accepted it should not be reconfirmed for every piece of software that 
falls under it, of course. However, I do think that at a minimum a banner 
should be shown stating what license a piece of software falls under.

Regards,
Jason

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Enemy Territory Strikes Back

[Chris Bainbridge]

On Wednesday 08 October 2003 13:22, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> On Wednesday 08 October 2003 21:22, Dhruba Bandopadhyay wrote:
> > -- Will this licence check now serve as the default method of handling
> > EULA's for future licenced games?
>
> I'm wondering about this for all software. In my installation and upgrade
> of Gentoo, I've never seen anything telling me that I have to accept X
> license to use Y software. If there has been, it has been barely noticable.
>
> I think that forcing users to accept licenses is a Good Thing. Once a
> license is accepted it should not be reconfirmed for every piece of
> software that falls under it, of course. However, I do think that at a
> minimum a banner should be shown stating what license a piece of software
> falls under.
>
> Regards,
> Jason

Why is the license important to the average user? The license can't take away 
any rights given to you by law. The only time the average user needs to 
concern themselves with a license is where the license grants them extra 
rights - the most important one concerning gentoo is allowing redistribution, 
which would otherwise by prohibited by copyright law. Unless you are running 
a gentoo mirror, or actually developing for the code in question, the license 
is mostly irrelevant. Besides, there are hundreds of licenses in 
/usr/portages/licenses, do you really want to have to click y for every 
single one?


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Enemy Territory Strikes Back

[Jason Stubbs]

On Wednesday 08 October 2003 22:42, Chris Bainbridge wrote:
> On Wednesday 08 October 2003 13:22, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> > On Wednesday 08 October 2003 21:22, Dhruba Bandopadhyay wrote:
> > > -- Will this licence check now serve as the default method of handling
> > > EULA's for future licenced games?
> >
> > I'm wondering about this for all software. In my installation and upgrade
> > of Gentoo, I've never seen anything telling me that I have to accept X
> > license to use Y software. If there has been, it has been barely
> > noticable.
> >
> > I think that forcing users to accept licenses is a Good Thing. Once a
> > license is accepted it should not be reconfirmed for every piece of
> > software that falls under it, of course. However, I do think that at a
> > minimum a banner should be shown stating what license a piece of software
> > falls under.
>
> Why is the license important to the average user? The license can't take
> away any rights given to you by law. The only time the average user needs
> to concern themselves with a license is where the license grants them extra
> rights - the most important one concerning gentoo is allowing
> redistribution, which would otherwise by prohibited by copyright law.
> Unless you are running a gentoo mirror, or actually developing for the code
> in question, the license is mostly irrelevant. Besides, there are hundreds
> of licenses in
> /usr/portages/licenses, do you really want to have to click y for every
> single one?

Well, the only time a user needs to concerned with a GPL/LGPL is when 
programming in which case the license is stamped all over the source code. 
But what about the other "hundreds of licenses"? Do any of those limit the 
rights of the user? Even so, I still think it would be a good idea to at 
least have a banner stating what license the user is assumed to have accepted 
when installing software.

Regards,
Jason

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Enemy Territory Strikes Back

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: signed data --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 1199 bytes --]

On Wednesday 08 October 2003 08:22, Dhruba Bandopadhyay wrote:
> -- So what dialogue resulted in them returning and what happened exactly?

right now it just uses $PAGER and then asks a simple yes/no question

> -- What form does the licence check take exactly in theory to save me
> having to re-emerge ET?  Are ebuilds interactive for the first time ever
> in the lifetime of the operating system?

right now it'll ask you everytime you emerge the package (unless you define 
what licenses you accept via the variable ACCEPT_LICENSES in make.conf).  
these change is a moving-forward-only-step ... that is to say, the current 
state of portage does not violate the EULA thus we dont have to force all 
users to upgrade all their packages just to say 'yes'.

> -- Will this licence check now serve as the default method of handling
> EULA's for future licenced games?

i'm trying to get this integrated into portage so that we can more easily 
track what licenses the user accepts and to make the whole process smoother.  
right now this implementation is the 'bare min' just to make portage legally 
safe.  the next step is looking into a long term implementation ...
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Enemy Territory Strikes Back

[Dhruba Bandopadhyay]

Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Wednesday 08 October 2003 08:22, Dhruba Bandopadhyay wrote:
> 
>>-- So what dialogue resulted in them returning and what happened exactly?
> 
> 
> right now it just uses $PAGER and then asks a simple yes/no question

Thanks for explanation.  What I meant by the above question was "what 
happened to allow ET back into portage".  Did ID suddenly say "Sorry 
we've been so harsh, go on ahead with ebuilds" or did Gentoo persuade 
them to agree by offering a midway compromise?  Just curious about what 
caused the turn around since I haven't seen anything on here since we 
were told ID is long gone from portage.

Thanks.


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Enemy Territory Strikes Back

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2025 bytes --]

On Wed, 2003-10-08 at 08:22, Dhruba Bandopadhyay wrote:
> Hello
> 
>  From cvs changelogs I notice ID based based including ET are back in 
> portage and also that they now have a licence check.
> 
> -- So what dialogue resulted in them returning and what happened exactly?

Essentially, the games team decided we were going to implement the
license check and put them back in portage.  We contacted id Software
and informed them of what we were doing and asked if they had any
objections.  You can find that message sent from me in the mailing list
( a few days ago, Friday, I think).  We received a response from the CEO
of id Software which essentially read that id gives up no rights to us
at all and as long as we followed the EULA, we were kosher.  The license
check gives us compliance.

> -- What form does the licence check take exactly in theory to save me 
> having to re-emerge ET?  Are ebuilds interactive for the first time ever 
> in the lifetime of the operating system?

It checks the ACCEPT_LICENSES portage variable.  If the current license
(RTCW-ETEULA in this case) is not in your ACCEPT_LICENSES, then it
displays the license and forces acceptance before unpacking.  The build
is only interactive if you have not specified to accept the license.  At
this time it does not add your acceptance to your ACCEPT_LICENSES
variable for you, since we feel this is a function of portage itself
(which is in the works) and not of the function.

> -- Will this licence check now serve as the default method of handling 
> EULA's for future licenced games?

Yes.  It is in the eutils.eclass and really can be used for any
licensing materials where the license must be accepted by the user to
install (not download) the package.

> My curiosity got the better of me so I had to ask :)
> 
> With regards
> Dhruba Bandopadhyay
> 
> 
> --
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
> 
-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Developer, Gentoo Linux
Games Team

Is your power animal a penguin?

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Enemy Territory Strikes Back

[Brett I. Holcomb]

I assume the ACCEPT_LICENSES goes in make.conf?  If not where do I put it?

Thanks.

On Wednesday 08 October 2003 21:22, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-10-08 at 08:22, Dhruba Bandopadhyay wrote:
> > Hello
>
> > -- What form does the licence check take exactly in theory to save me
> > having to re-emerge ET?  Are ebuilds interactive for the first time ever
> > in the lifetime of the operating system?
>
> It checks the ACCEPT_LICENSES portage variable.  If the current license
> (RTCW-ETEULA in this case) is not in your ACCEPT_LICENSES, then it
> displays the license and forces acceptance before unpacking.  The build
> is only interactive if you have not specified to accept the license.  At
> this time it does not add your acceptance to your ACCEPT_LICENSES
> variable for you, since we feel this is a function of portage itself
> (which is in the works) and not of the function.

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Enemy Territory Strikes Back

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1605 bytes --]

On Wed, 2003-10-08 at 22:11, Brett I.Holcomb wrote:
> I assume the ACCEPT_LICENSES goes in make.conf?  If not where do I put it?

Like all portage configuration, it goes in make.conf.  We're pushing for
having this more automated in portage itself.  In fact, my original
version of the function created a /usr/share/licenses directory and
stored information there about which licenses had been accepted so the
user would never be asked again.  Then Mike (SpanKY) pointed out that
ACCEPT_LICENSES was already a part of portage which just hadn't seen the
light of day yet and would be perfect for this situation.

> Thanks.
> > On Wed, 2003-10-08 at 08:22, Dhruba Bandopadhyay wrote:
> > > Hello
> > >
> > >  From cvs changelogs I notice ID based based including ET are back in
> >
> > > -- What form does the licence check take exactly in theory to save me
> > > having to re-emerge ET?  Are ebuilds interactive for the first time ever
> > > in the lifetime of the operating system?
> >
> > It checks the ACCEPT_LICENSES portage variable.  If the current license
> > (RTCW-ETEULA in this case) is not in your ACCEPT_LICENSES, then it
> > displays the license and forces acceptance before unpacking.  The build
> > is only interactive if you have not specified to accept the license.  At
> > this time it does not add your acceptance to your ACCEPT_LICENSES
> > variable for you, since we feel this is a function of portage itself
> > (which is in the works) and not of the function.
-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Developer, Gentoo Linux
Games Team

Is your power animal a penguin?

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Enemy Territory Strikes Back

[Dhruba Bandopadhyay]

Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-10-08 at 08:22, Dhruba Bandopadhyay wrote:
> 
>>Hello
>>
>> From cvs changelogs I notice ID based based including ET are back in 
>>portage and also that they now have a licence check.
>>
>>-- So what dialogue resulted in them returning and what happened exactly?
> 
> 
> Essentially, the games team decided we were going to implement the
> license check and put them back in portage.  We contacted id Software
> and informed them of what we were doing and asked if they had any
> objections.  You can find that message sent from me in the mailing list
> ( a few days ago, Friday, I think).  We received a response from the CEO
> of id Software which essentially read that id gives up no rights to us
> at all and as long as we followed the EULA, we were kosher.  The license
> check gives us compliance.

Ah I see.  Well, thank you for the explanation.  It's surprising how 
these turnarounds happen isn't it and just how trivial they can become.

I'm over the moon that ID based games are back in portage but also quite 
sad that the interactivity rule that ebuilds have followed for so long 
has finally been broken.  Nevertheless, one might say it's been a worthy 
cause and would have happened later if not sooner for a range of 
packages of a similar sort.


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Enemy Territory Strikes Back

[Brett I. Holcomb]

It isn't broken.  Chris indicated that if the ACCEPT_LICENSE keyword is set 
in portage it will continue. 

On Thursday 09 October 2003 18:08, you wrote:
> Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > On Wed, 2003-10-08 at 08:22, Dhruba Bandopadhyay wrote:
> >>Hello
> these turnarounds happen isn't it and just how trivial they can become.
>
> I'm over the moon that ID based games are back in portage but also quite
> sad that the interactivity rule that ebuilds have followed for so long
> has finally been broken.  Nevertheless, one might say it's been a worthy
> cause and would have happened later if not sooner for a range of
> packages of a similar sort.

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Enemy Territory Strikes Back

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2148 bytes --]

On Thu, 2003-10-09 at 18:08, Dhruba Bandopadhyay wrote:
> Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > On Wed, 2003-10-08 at 08:22, Dhruba Bandopadhyay wrote:
> > 
> >>Hello
> >>
> >> From cvs changelogs I notice ID based based including ET are back in 
> >>portage and also that they now have a licence check.
> >>
> >>-- So what dialogue resulted in them returning and what happened exactly?
> > 
> > 
> > Essentially, the games team decided we were going to implement the
> > license check and put them back in portage.  We contacted id Software
> > and informed them of what we were doing and asked if they had any
> > objections.  You can find that message sent from me in the mailing list
> > ( a few days ago, Friday, I think).  We received a response from the CEO
> > of id Software which essentially read that id gives up no rights to us
> > at all and as long as we followed the EULA, we were kosher.  The license
> > check gives us compliance.
> 
> Ah I see.  Well, thank you for the explanation.  It's surprising how 
> these turnarounds happen isn't it and just how trivial they can become.
> 
> I'm over the moon that ID based games are back in portage but also quite 
> sad that the interactivity rule that ebuilds have followed for so long 
> has finally been broken.  Nevertheless, one might say it's been a worthy 
> cause and would have happened later if not sooner for a range of 
> packages of a similar sort.

The rule has been broken for some time.  There are quite a few packages
which install from CD, and one that I know of that even installs from 3
CDs!

I've been brainstorming a way to keep packages that require
CDs/interactivity from destroying world upgrades.  If anyone has any
ideas, please let me know.  I was thinking of possibly suggesting the
introduction of a portage feature to go into FEATURES called
"interactive", which turns on interactive mode on ebuilds which require
it.  If an ebuild requires interactivity but the FEATURE is not set,
then the ebuild will skip all of the steps.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Developer, Gentoo Linux
Games Team

Is your power animal a penguin?

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Enemy Territory Strikes Back

[Paul de Vrieze]

[-- Attachment #1: signed data --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 725 bytes --]

On Friday 10 October 2003 04:39, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
>
> I've been brainstorming a way to keep packages that require
> CDs/interactivity from destroying world upgrades.  If anyone has any
> ideas, please let me know.  I was thinking of possibly suggesting the
> introduction of a portage feature to go into FEATURES called
> "interactive", which turns on interactive mode on ebuilds which require
> it.  If an ebuild requires interactivity but the FEATURE is not set,
> then the ebuild will skip all of the steps.

I think it is a better way to have ebuilds declare themselves as being 
interactive.

Paul

-- 
Paul de Vrieze
Gentoo Developer
Mail: pauldv@gentoo.org
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net

[-- Attachment #2: signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]