On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 05:05:50PM -0700, Alec Warner wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 4:48 PM William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 04:34:27PM -0700, Alec Warner wrote:
> > > On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 10:39 AM Michael Orlitzky <mjo@gentoo.org>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 9/11/19 1:21 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> > > > > +++ b/dev-vcs/hub/hub-2.12.3.ebuild
> > > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > LICENSE="MIT"
> > > >
> > > > This license is wrong, as it's pretty much guaranteed to be every time
> > > > you commit one of these packages. I find it pretty troubling that one
> > > > corporation is able to force this stuff through even though it's a
> > > > security and legal hazard for everyone else.
> > > >
> > >
> > > How is it wrong?
> > >
> > > https://github.com/github/hub/blob/master/LICENSE
> >
> > The argument is that because of the vendoring, LICENSE= needs to list
> > all licenses for the vendored dependencies that are different from MIT
> > as well.
> >
> 
> I see, I tend to believe that argument in that case.
> 
> 
> >
> > Personally I don't have a comment about this, but that's what is being
> > pushed for. I'll let you guys debate this but it isn't really relevant
> > to the eclass. ;-)
> >
> 
> I think it's difficult to put instructions in the eclass like:
> 
> +# $ cd /my/clone/of/upstream
> +# $ git checkout <release>
> +# $ go mod vendor
> +# $ tar cvf project-version-vendor.tar.gz vendor
> 
> And then not mention this fairly easy trap (it's so easy to fall into you
> did it twice.)

In the case of hub, I didn't make a vendor tarball because upstream does
the vendoring, so I don't see how these two things are related.

In other words, the way I see this is a tree-wide issue. LICENSE= for
any package should list every license for every package it links to or
uses.

William