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 1MCTy1-0003YI-Ib for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 05 Jun 2009 07:35:57 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9156FE0585; Fri, 5 Jun 2009 07:35:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-qy0-f178.google.com (mail-qy0-f178.google.com [209.85.221.178]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74603E0585 for ; Fri, 5 Jun 2009 07:35:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: by qyk8 with SMTP id 8so42027qyk.32 for ; Fri, 05 Jun 2009 00:35:56 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:received:in-reply-to :references:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=hiuUwlHq0+NHks/qJw9LYpx9PKD+SSN+0OXq0p+k+ps=; b=aYh7KEi0+/u+T61PeNzr2pT9z/4ITOBON+R2qmDO5ldgX2qAKw7IAiqpfyafkT2nqX FDOBi3rCrTI8PoDnOHjSM+Mc4Xh+1I7VGrJ5mRGlSHQFL0fIW+z8t128XQi3L9Hd4WsN Cssu45XSsWkS/6WJ9FlFORVw+VALPV1nmRQsI= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=T8sdyU8jKOGa8jevn3Ao5dpKdijJFhCyUe+WFCH4Z4iQblIbMSBfANSBT1MuxOHZIf QENhsULvvUSqbJt3BuwQUdIirULhLJVuNpyVkqsqiaF/B0SL5j5vjIjbLOYu5wM+FXGG qbg5frVt0nF9wcE9IrDWT9syvc+kX71TV8Xj8= 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 Sender: nirbheek.chauhan@gmail.com Received: by 10.229.74.77 with SMTP id t13mr858686qcj.7.1244187356190; Fri, 05 Jun 2009 00:35:56 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1244154362.11496.172.camel@localhost> References: <1244154362.11496.172.camel@localhost> Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 13:05:56 +0530 X-Google-Sender-Auth: e50a6c8a4557491a Message-ID: <8b4c83ad0906050035o31a71c7fme9b46ebea59faef3@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Council Reminder for June 11 From: Nirbheek Chauhan To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Cc: =?UTF-8?Q?R=C3=A9mi_Cardona?= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: 9b35d6a1-2220-46dc-b15e-d8a837501b6d X-Archives-Hash: fea922ff7211eec9ee2a5e4f4cb79cd7 On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 3:56 AM, Tiziano M=C3=BCller wr= ote: > Default ACCEPT_LICENSE > ---------------------- > Goal: A possible default value for ACCEPT_LICENSE has been proposed. Deci= de > whether that's ok. What happens to the X11 license files (one for each ap= p)? > The x11 team[1] came to the conclusion that following RedHat's lead and just using MIT as license for Xorg packages should suffice since they are quite careful about these things. This should definitely be better than the current practice anyway. Are there any other packages or sets of packages with horrible LICENSE behaviour similar to this? 1. Remi, could you reply here and confirm for record purposes? --=20 ~Nirbheek Chauhan