Re: [gentoo-dev] Should mirror restriction imply bindist restriction?

[Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org>]

On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 3:24 PM, Ian Stakenvicius <axs@gentoo.org> wrote:
> IUSE="bindist" tends to be for adjusting a particular package so that
> it either is generic and CAN be binary-distributable, or will build as
> upstream intended (with, for instance, upstream branding) and
> therefore is not.  Right?

Correct.

>
> So, in essence, the use flag can allow for an exception of a 'bindist'
> LICENSE.  Would it make more sense then to have LICENSE= contents
> controlled conditionally?  ie:
>

I'm not sure if this is really necessary.

If a user doesn't want to accidentally install something that isn't
redistributable they can start with
ACCEPT_LICENSE=@BINARY-REDISTRIBUTABLE, which already exists.

Then they can augment that by manually overriding it for packages
where they've decided they're not impacted, or where they're using
USE=-bindist.

There are really only a small number of situations where this will
happen.  I'm not sure if we need to implement conditional licensing
with a pseudo-license on top of that just to cover them.  The license
itself doesn't actually change when you USE -bindist - you're simply
complying with it.

Rich