From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MjERl-0003wM-MU for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 03 Sep 2009 15:42:01 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id CB5AFE0863; Thu, 3 Sep 2009 20:50:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC7FCE0863 for ; Thu, 3 Sep 2009 20:50:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.199] (rke75-4-82-234-111-163.fbx.proxad.net [82.234.111.163]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4C6866F65 for ; Thu, 3 Sep 2009 20:50:34 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4AA02C11.3040109@gentoo.org> Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2009 22:50:25 +0200 From: Mounir Lamouri User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (X11/20090823) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Add operator + for licenses (EAPI-4 ?) References: <4A9C4AD6.9080505@gentoo.org> <4A9C4F08.8040103@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <4A9C4F08.8040103@gentoo.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: 96ec2e18-e34d-43ed-9c2a-ab3b7e30f454 X-Archives-Hash: 04f39b2dda633dbfcadf5705482befb2 R=C3=A9mi Cardona wrote: > Le 01/09/2009 00:12, Mounir Lamouri a =C3=A9crit : >> Hi, >> >> As you should know, GLEP 23 [1] introduced USE flags conditions in >> LICENSE variable and || operator in addition of licenses groups and >> ACCEPT_LICENSE variable. >> >> [1] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0023.html > > /me still thinks LICENSE should be informational _at_best_. Users who > rely on LICENSE to build an FSF-approved system will simply be mislead. > > If we want to support this sort of things properly, we should have a > treewide license audit. Anything short of that will just be a > disservice to our users. I don't think your argument is valid. LICENSE is not informational so we have to deal with it and as GLEP-23 has an issue, we should fix it. I know even with this feature building a free-only system with ACCEPT_LICENSE will not be easy but the tree cleaning or anything else is a next step. Let's focus on what we can do now and what I propose is clearly doable and it will not break anything. -- Mounir