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 1EI8rV-0003OH-Cv
for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 21 Sep 2005 17:58:30 +0000
Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with SMTP id j8LHpB91013625;
Wed, 21 Sep 2005 17:51:11 GMT
Received: from qproxy.gmail.com (qproxy.gmail.com [72.14.204.206])
by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id j8LHmDjE008757
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Wed, 21 Sep 2005 17:48:13 GMT
Received: by qproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id q11so377499qbq
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Wed, 21 Sep 2005 10:54:13 -0700 (PDT)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
s=beta; d=gmail.com;
h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references;
b=OkQy4uGQhdHyctDlDJGWpA0LPAtGsxGDSh4RoYbweit60bcdEnRSemxaxuQPMwvxDCVf6qQ6Gj3lCN+1Uas8OMluZwidqTEX3gYmTpIa484qAcI7VZyIMe10+GNL1UQjaDD7SabV+MfogpIUR8Hqxrxmjk+Cbm6RSXZtMD1nSQo=
Received: by 10.65.122.9 with SMTP id z9mr132021qbm;
Wed, 21 Sep 2005 10:54:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.65.126.13 with HTTP; Wed, 21 Sep 2005 10:54:13 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <3f85ef27050921105464c82c51@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 18:54:13 +0100
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jos=E9_Carlos_Cruz_Costa?= <meetra@gmail.com>
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] "Commercial" software in portage
In-Reply-To: <20050921172801.42BBEF5C20@mail.deploylinux.net>
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_Part_718_15232873.1127325253244"
References: <20050921172801.42BBEF5C20@mail.deploylinux.net>
X-Archives-Salt: 342e16e8-a5e7-4550-8165-510d6ba04189
X-Archives-Hash: df57d3570e341d0be0377272b0493a73
------=_Part_718_15232873.1127325253244
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
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 binar=
y
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 licens=
e
> >> 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 woul=
d
> 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 portag=
e
> >> 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, w=
e
> could
> require that all licenses listed in the commercial group be manually adde=
d
> 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. Th=
e
> default
> portage ACCEPT_LICENSE would be -commercial.
>
> MattM
>
> --
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
>
>
------=_Part_718_15232873.1127325253244
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
Hi everybody,<br><br>If it's commercial, the company in question should (an=
d must) allow an ebuild for is product, like what happens with rpms and oth=
er packages. Adding commercial ebuilds to portage is like tainting the kern=
el with binary drivers.
<br><br>Maybe a better solution comes with gensync? If companies want ebuil=
ds, sure. They go to the "commercial" portage. Hell, even put a p=
rice on maintaining those ebuilds.<br><br>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.=20
<br><br><div><span class=3D"gmail_quote">On 9/21/05, <b class=3D"gmail_send=
ername">Matthew Marlowe</b> <<a href=3D"mailto:mattm@gentoo.org">mattm@g=
entoo.org</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"b=
order-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; paddin=
g-left: 1ex;">
<br>>> We could add a license, called "commercial" into the=
tree. This license<br>>> would look like the following.<b=
r><br>I would definitly support adding "commercial" as a license =
group as part of
<br>GLEP23 implementation.<br><br>As part of adding any new commercial lice=
nse to the tree, developers would have<br>to add the license to the commerc=
ial group.<br><br>>> While this will break completely<br>&=
gt;> interactive ebuilds until GLEP23 is fully implemented, a user can a=
dd
<br>>> the license to make.conf in an ACCEPT_LICENSE variable, to kee=
p portage<br>>> from asking again.<br><br>We wouldnt break anything (=
hopefully) if we just do this as I specified above.<br><br>Also, I'm wonder=
ing if we truly need check_license in ebuilds. Instead, we could
<br>require that all licenses listed in the commercial group be manually ad=
ded to<br>the ACCEPT_LICENSES line /etc/make.conf before emerging. &nb=
sp;If the license<br>wasnt added, emerge would stop and ask the user to add=
the license manually.
<br><br>Therefore, the user would be explicitely indicating their approval =
of the license by<br>adding it. Implementation could be as simpl=
e as ACCEPT_LICENSES not allowing<br>"+commercial" to be defined.=
It makes no sense, or at least we shouldnt encourage
<br>someone to say they agree to all commercial licenses so easily anyway.&=
nbsp; The default<br>portage ACCEPT_LICENSE would be -commercial.<br><=
br>MattM<br><br>--<br><a href=3D"mailto:gentoo-dev@gentoo.org">gentoo-dev@g=
entoo.org
</a> mailing list<br><br></blockquote></div><br>
------=_Part_718_15232873.1127325253244--
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list