From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE2141381F3 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 16:03:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id F3A8AE09E0; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 16:03:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 61CEDE09DD for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 16:03:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.26.5] (ip98-164-195-43.oc.oc.cox.net [98.164.195.43]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: zmedico) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9209E33EAA3 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 16:03:42 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <51F7E3DD.6060201@gentoo.org> Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 09:03:41 -0700 From: Zac Medico User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686 on x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130620 Thunderbird/17.0.7 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Project discussion list X-BeenThere: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Reply-To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] changing the default of ACCEPT_LICENSE in portage References: <51F16EF7.30606@gentoo.org> <20130730150840.GD14765@comet.hsd1.mn.comcast.net> <51F7DB94.4000200@gentoo.org> <51F7E246.1040608@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <51F7E246.1040608@gentoo.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 4bae6f6f-a4f4-4e77-8d2b-abb85d49601f X-Archives-Hash: 4a4e09546cd5de1ace00c14a2d9e51d1 On 07/30/2013 08:56 AM, Zac Medico wrote: > On 07/30/2013 08:28 AM, hasufell wrote: >> I don't see any conflict between requiring the user to accept unfree >> licenses explicitly and our philosophy. > > I'm not arguing this point. > >> In fact, we are already forcing interaction with that variable via "-@EULA". > > The only reason for this is that it is a means to ensure that the EULA > will is displayed by default, in order to respect the wishes of the > copyright owners. For those not aware of the history, it should also be noted that we used to have a check_license function in eutils.eclass explicitly for this purpose, and ebuilds that used it had to set PROPERTIES="interactive" which was much more annoying that the license masking approach that replaced it. -- Thanks, Zac