public inbox for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "José Carlos Cruz Costa" <meetra@gmail.com>
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] "Commercial" software in portage
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 18:54:13 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <3f85ef27050921105464c82c51@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20050921172801.42BBEF5C20@mail.deploylinux.net>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2131 bytes --]

Hi everybody,

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.

Maybe a better solution comes with gensync? If companies want ebuilds, sure.
They go to the "commercial" portage. Hell, even put a price on maintaining
those ebuilds.

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.

On 9/21/05, Matthew Marlowe <mattm@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
>
> >> We could add a license, called "commercial" into the tree. This license
> >> would look like the following.
>
> I would definitly support adding "commercial" as a license group as part
> of
> GLEP23 implementation.
>
> As part of adding any new commercial license to the tree, developers would
> have
> to add the license to the commercial group.
>
> >> 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 portage
> >> from asking again.
>
> We wouldnt break anything (hopefully) if we just do this as I specified
> above.
>
> Also, I'm wondering if we truly need check_license in ebuilds. Instead, we
> could
> require that all licenses listed in the commercial group be manually added
> 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
> manually.
>
> Therefore, the user would be explicitely indicating their approval of the
> license by
> adding it. Implementation could be as simple as ACCEPT_LICENSES not
> allowing
> "+commercial" to be defined. It makes no sense, or at least we shouldnt
> encourage
> someone to say they agree to all commercial licenses so easily anyway. The
> default
> portage ACCEPT_LICENSE would be -commercial.
>
> MattM
>
> --
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2595 bytes --]

  reply	other threads:[~2005-09-21 17:58 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2005-09-21 17:31 [gentoo-dev] "Commercial" software in portage Matthew Marlowe
2005-09-21 17:54 ` José Carlos Cruz Costa [this message]
2005-09-21 18:00   ` Daniel Ostrow
2005-09-21 18:15     ` Chris Gianelloni
2005-09-22  8:26     ` Philippe Trottier
2005-09-23 14:42       ` Brian Harring
2005-09-23 15:06         ` Jason Stubbs
2005-09-21 18:08   ` Daniel Ostrow
2005-09-21 18:13   ` Chris Gianelloni
2005-09-21 17:57 ` Chris Gianelloni
2005-09-21 22:55   ` Lance Albertson
2005-09-22 13:30     ` Chris Gianelloni
2005-09-22 16:46       ` Brian Harring
2005-09-22 17:30         ` Chris Gianelloni
2005-09-22 20:29           ` Brian Harring
2005-09-22 21:09             ` Chris Gianelloni
2005-09-22 21:57               ` warnera6
2005-09-22 22:01                 ` Ciaran McCreesh
2005-09-23 13:09                   ` Chris Gianelloni
2005-09-23  1:38               ` Jason Stubbs
2005-09-23 13:28                 ` Chris Gianelloni
2005-09-23 14:08                   ` Jason Stubbs
2005-09-23 14:59                     ` Chris Gianelloni
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2005-09-21 13:51 Chris Gianelloni
2005-09-21 20:15 ` Paweł Madej
2005-09-21 22:31 ` Marius Mauch
2005-09-22  8:14   ` Thierry Carrez
2005-09-22 13:34     ` Chris Gianelloni
2005-09-22 13:28   ` Chris Gianelloni
2005-09-22 15:37     ` Georgi Georgiev
2005-09-22 15:54       ` Chris Gianelloni
2005-09-22 16:56         ` Cory Visi
2005-09-22 17:13           ` Matti Bickel
2005-09-22 17:04         ` Donnie Berkholz

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=3f85ef27050921105464c82c51@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=meetra@gmail.com \
    --cc=gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox