Re: [gentoo-project] changing the default of ACCEPT_LICENSE in portage

[Ulrich Mueller <ulm@gentoo.org>]

>>>>> On Thu, 25 Jul 2013, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:

> And no-source-code means that no public free licensed source code
> exists at all, or is just not shipped in the distfile? Do we need to
> distinguish these two? (I think this affects various -bin packages
> and fonts mostly)

"no-source-code" means that the section about source code of the Free
Software Definition ...

| In order for freedoms 1 and 3 (the freedom to make changes and the
| freedom to publish the changed versions) to be meaningful, you must
| have access to the source code of the program. Therefore,
| accessibility of source code is a necessary condition for free
| software. Obfuscated "source code" is not real source code and does
| not count as source code.

... or section 2 of the Open Source Definition ...

| The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in
| source code as well as compiled form. Where some form of a product
| is not distributed with source code, there must be a well-publicized
| means of obtaining the source code for no more than a reasonable
| reproduction cost preferably, downloading via the Internet without
| charge. The source code must be the preferred form in which a
| programmer would modify the program. Deliberately obfuscated source
| code is not allowed. Intermediate forms such as the output of a
| preprocessor or translator are not allowed.

... are not fulfilled. So a well-publicised location where the source
code can be freely accessed would qualify.

Ulrich