From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EI8v0-0002l2-J4 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 21 Sep 2005 18:02:06 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with SMTP id j8LHtQH9000628; Wed, 21 Sep 2005 17:55:26 GMT Received: from smtp05.gnvlscdb.sys.nuvox.net (smtp.nuvox.net [64.89.70.9]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id j8LHr5BR016559 for ; Wed, 21 Sep 2005 17:53:06 GMT Received: from cgianelloni.nuvox.net (216.215.202.4.nw.nuvox.net [216.215.202.4]) by smtp05.gnvlscdb.sys.nuvox.net (8.12.11/8.12.11) with SMTP id j8LI14jw023439 for ; Wed, 21 Sep 2005 14:01:04 -0400 Received: by cgianelloni.nuvox.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 21 Sep 2005 13:57:45 -0400 Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] "Commercial" software in portage From: Chris Gianelloni To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <20050921172801.42BBEF5C20@mail.deploylinux.net> References: <20050921172801.42BBEF5C20@mail.deploylinux.net> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-ZjrEZvAxyHxFRdvdRsC5" Organization: Gentoo Linux Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 13:57:45 -0400 Message-Id: <1127325465.30787.58.camel@cgianelloni.nuvox.net> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.3 X-Archives-Salt: 01553111-6371-456d-9612-b2b898362aa5 X-Archives-Hash: 6b4b2bdebad280d3610b3a8797b907ec --=-ZjrEZvAxyHxFRdvdRsC5 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, 2005-09-21 at 10:31 -0700, Matthew Marlowe wrote: > >> We could add a license, called "commercial" into the tree. This licen= se > >> would look like the following. >=20 > I would definitly support adding "commercial" as a license group as part = of > GLEP23 implementation. This isn't so much talking about GLEP23, but doing an interim implementation *now* since I've not heard anything from GLEP23 for some time. > As part of adding any new commercial license to the tree, developers woul= d have > to add the license to the commercial group. >=20 > >> While this will break completely > >> interactive ebuilds until GLEP23 is fully implemented, a user can add > >> the license to make.conf in an ACCEPT_LICENSE variable, to keep portag= e > >> from asking again. =20 >=20 > We wouldnt break anything (hopefully) if we just do this as I specified a= bove. Except GLEP23 isn't implemented, so we cannot rely on it. > Also, I'm wondering if we truly need check_license in ebuilds. Instead, = we could Yes. GLEP23 support is not in portage yet. Certain packages (which will rename nameless, *cough*enemy-territory*cough*) *require* that the user accept the license before it is installed. > require that all licenses listed in the commercial group be manually adde= d to > the ACCEPT_LICENSES line /etc/make.conf before emerging. If the license > wasnt added, emerge would stop and ask the user to add the license manual= ly. This is almost what check_license does, except it doesn't require the user to add it manually, just accept the license. > Therefore, the user would be explicitely indicating their approval of the= license by=20 > adding it. Implementation could be as simple as ACCEPT_LICENSES not allo= wing=20 > "+commercial" to be defined. It makes no sense, or at least we shouldnt = encourage=20 > someone to say they agree to all commercial licenses so easily anyway. T= he default=20 > portage ACCEPT_LICENSE would be -commercial. Anyway, you didn't answer my question, at all. My question is about adding a "commercial" license to portage *now* and adding it to relevant ebuilds so it shows up when users do an "emerge -S" or look in http://packages.gentoo.org now, not when GLEP23 finally rolls around. At that time, I would expect there to be a proper implementation. Of course, I also think that there's no point in grouping commercial licenses at all if we aren't going to allow acceptance of them all as a group. Commercial licenses are individual, so they should stay that way, but that's a discussion for another thread... ;] --=20 Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering - Strategic Lead Games - Developer Gentoo Linux --=-ZjrEZvAxyHxFRdvdRsC5 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBDMZ8ZkT4lNIS36YERAigKAJ9lxxtnhiRoQpU556TxPe9rbWsJgwCguY6i nRFkDY1Env4+qKTCo7cFQLo= =gbL/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-ZjrEZvAxyHxFRdvdRsC5-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list