Re: [gentoo-dev] "Commercial" software in portage

[Chris Gianelloni <wolf31o2@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1519 bytes --]

On Wed, 2005-09-21 at 18:54 +0100, José Carlos Cruz Costa wrote:
> If it's commercial, the company in question should (and must) allow an
> ebuild for is product, like what happens with rpms and other packages.
> Adding commercial ebuilds to portage is like tainting the kernel with
> binary drivers. 

Umm... no.  An ebuild is just a recipe for fetching/building a package.
It isn't the same as modification and redistribution (ala RPM) in any
way.  It is *nothing* like tainting the kernel and this conversation has
*nothing* to do with what I asked an opinion on.  I'm trying to ask a
technical opinion on a technical issue.  There's no need to pull in any
political garbage into the discussion, as that only fans the flames.

> Remember that are a lot of people that don't want to use that kind of
> software. There are people that doesn't have even xorg and have to
> sync all the ebuilds from portage. 

Those people are the exact reason I am wanting to do this.  Right now,
they see "License:     DOOM3" when they do an "emerge -S"... I'm
proposing they would see a "License:     DOOM3 commercial" instead.

Anyway, please try to refrain from hijacking my thread into some
pseudo-political stance.  I'm not making one or asking for one.  I'm
asking for acceptance on a technical solution for some users that allows
them to make a political decision, without making any decisions for
them.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead
Games - Developer
Gentoo Linux

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