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 1EIUFY-0001NP-9h for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 22 Sep 2005 16:48:44 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with SMTP id j8MGftSm013385; Thu, 22 Sep 2005 16:41:55 GMT Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [134.68.220.30]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id j8MGeBqL011679 for ; Thu, 22 Sep 2005 16:40:12 GMT Received: from cpe-65-26-255-237.wi.res.rr.com ([65.26.255.237] helo=nightcrawler) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.43) id 1EIUDF-0005LL-BT for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Thu, 22 Sep 2005 16:46:21 +0000 Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 11:46:40 -0500 From: Brian Harring To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] "Commercial" software in portage Message-ID: <20050922164640.GC10187@nightcrawler> References: <20050921172801.42BBEF5C20@mail.deploylinux.net> <1127325465.30787.58.camel@cgianelloni.nuvox.net> <4331E4F5.3090506@gentoo.org> <1127395820.24269.31.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 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="ABTtc+pdwF7KHXCz" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1127395820.24269.31.camel@cgianelloni.nuvox.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-Archives-Salt: 3f93c21d-f879-48ba-a6c1-4cad49994799 X-Archives-Hash: ab65c18dc8092c26f7facb6c94fa75d2 --ABTtc+pdwF7KHXCz Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Sep 22, 2005 at 09:30:20AM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote: > On Wed, 2005-09-21 at 17:55 -0500, Lance Albertson wrote: > > Is this just a one-off implementation until GLEP 23 is implemented, or > > something that will complement it? Whats going to happen to this data > > after GLEP23 gets implemented? I'd hate to see something added simply > > because its a quick one-off solution to make something work. I'd rather > > see people focus on the actual GLEP and moving it along. Of course, if > > this data will just be an added feature of GLEP23, I don't see a proble= m. >=20 > This really has nothing to do with GLEP23, as it isn't related to any > kind of grouping, or ACCEPT_LICENSE. It is simply a marker to say to > our users: "Hey, you have to buy this for it to work." That is > something that GLEP23 does not provide for in any way. Actually, it does have to deal with glep23, and you already stated in=20 one of you emails (an "interim solution *now* since I've not heard=20 anything from GLEP23 for some time"). Further, where do you think you're going to migrate the check for this=20 license to? FYI, accept_license checks have been sitting in svn/cvs for about a=20 month, same as use deps. No, you can't use them now in a released=20 portage, but that's not much of a reason to introduce a fake license I'm sitting. Further, a better approach instead of people adhocing=20 yet another band aid in the tree would be to chip in- you want glep23? =20 help bring the *proper*, agreed upon solution to a stable portage, not=20 taking the easier route. The suggested intention of this fake license is also a bit daft imo;=20 what is LICENSE, the metadata? The license the underlying pkg is=20 released under. Commercial is supposed to be mean "it costs money",=20 well, how are you going to deal with opera? Flip off the commercial=20 license now? The original proposed angle (glep23 implementation isn't here) is=20 jumping the gun, and the angle of "it indicates it costs money" isn't=20 proper either. You want to indicate that this *specific* pkg costs money=20 (something not related to the license it's released under I might=20 add)? Stick it in metadata.xml or DESCRIPTION. License has a specific meaning- aside from the fact you're shoving an additional license requirement on people when glep23 hits, you're also=20 blocking anyone from using that as a license group do to the fact you=20 already introduced a psuedo license in instead of a *proper* groupping. So... my 2 cents? No (was obvious already, wasn't it? :) ~harring --ABTtc+pdwF7KHXCz Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDMt/wvdBxRoA3VU0RAhWdAKC+yQ7UP1GiSk+uqUeBygM5SaZg4ACfZz0p rkOdkeXUQUc+UrjvltQuFJA= =3X0S -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --ABTtc+pdwF7KHXCz-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list