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 1MjaDX-0005SJ-8Q for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 04 Sep 2009 14:56:47 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 784E6E093A; Fri, 4 Sep 2009 20:05:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp2-g21.free.fr (smtp2-g21.free.fr [212.27.42.2]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 776F9E093A for ; Fri, 4 Sep 2009 20:05:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp2-g21.free.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp2-g21.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id D52FB4B00CE for ; Fri, 4 Sep 2009 22:05:12 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.0.13] (bne75-10-88-178-16-229.fbx.proxad.net [88.178.16.229]) by smtp2-g21.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE98F4B00C6 for ; Fri, 4 Sep 2009 22:05:09 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <4AA172DE.80104@gentoo.org> Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2009 22:04:46 +0200 From: =?UTF-8?B?UsOpbWkgQ2FyZG9uYQ==?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; fr; rv:1.9.1.1) Gecko/20090715 Thunderbird/3.0b3 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] Re: [RFC] Add operator + for licenses (EAPI-4 ?) References: <4A9C4AD6.9080505@gentoo.org> <4AA034C6.1080908@gentoo.org> <4AA12BD5.8060108@gentoo.org> <200909041952.12314.levertond@googlemail.com> In-Reply-To: <200909041952.12314.levertond@googlemail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: 461beb83-940d-4dde-aa40-3655586174bd X-Archives-Hash: 21ae313f544d236ff12919c35d8c8ae2 Le 04/09/2009 20:52, David Leverton a =C3=A9crit : > Is that really a problem? To me, it's not. :) > I admit to not being around for the original design > decisions, but I would assume that the purpose of having LICENSE in ebu= ilds > is to tell users what licence the package is under (whether or not it's > accurate is a different matter), and the purpose of having the licences > themselves in the tree is so that it's easy for users to look them up a= nd > decide whether they want to accept the conditions or not. For that pur= pose, > the exact list of credits is irrelevant. That was just an example to show that unless we go through a precise and=20 thorough audit of all the packages we offer, the LICENSE variable is=20 _informational_ at best. Having tools to manipulate those variables is very misleading since=20 users will (rightfully) assume that we've done our homework and that=20 upstream did too. I don't intend to stop anyone from creating new tools, but I just want=20 us all to realize the limits of what is being done here. Cheers, R=C3=A9mi