From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20320 invoked by uid 1002); 26 Nov 2003 12:06:14 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gentoo-dev-help@gentoo.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Received: (qmail 14832 invoked from network); 26 Nov 2003 12:06:13 -0000 Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 13:06:11 +0100 From: Christian Birchinger To: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Message-ID: <20031126120611.GA25888@netswarm.net> Mail-Followup-To: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org References: <200311191114.25081.pauldv@gentoo.org> <200311211050.59578.jasonbstubbs@mailandnews.com> <200311210226.hAL2QNe4093277@mxsf04.cluster1.charter.net> <20031121031332.GB22586@time> <20031121100737.GJ1502@gentoo.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20031121100737.GJ1502@gentoo.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-Accepted-File-Formats: ASCII, .ps, .rtf, .pdf - *NO* Micosoft Office files please X-Info: No HTML mails please. text/plain is the official email format Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo internal structure X-Archives-Salt: 1e50bc6b-38f0-4ef5-bd30-e1aa96e502b3 X-Archives-Hash: 9f83ff4c47b66ed8485e982f1370eb16 "freelicenses" will start huge flamewars about what's a "free" license and what not. Expect about 5-6 mails every week with requests for adding or removing licenses to that definition. On Fri, Nov 21, 2003 at 11:07:37AM +0100, Sven Vermeulen wrote: > On Thu, Nov 20, 2003 at 10:13:32PM -0500, Aron Griffis wrote: > > As Jason mentioned, putting reasonable defaults into make.defaults > > accomplishes #1. The default might even be ACCEPT_LICENSES='*', in > > which case modification in make.conf would need to be something like > > ACCEPT_LICENSES='-* GPL-1 GPL-2' (which then accomplishes #2) > > I might be just awake, but this idea sparkles in my eyes with a "wow" > subtitle. It is a great idea, and even though it has some rough edges (for > instance we probably shouldn't accept all licenses per default -- you never > know what the future might bring) and can be extended (kinda virtual-like, > such as ACCEPT_LICENSES="freelicenses" which would embody all known free > licenses) it is certainly something to consider. > > Is this the first time this popped up? If not, is there any progress into > creating a draft patch? Or a GLEP? > > Wkr, > Sven Vermeulen -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list