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 1R2VHy-0006Bh-7R for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 10 Sep 2011 21:40:38 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3162321C135; Sat, 10 Sep 2011 21:40:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net (mailout-de.gmx.net [213.165.64.23]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1EAD521C168 for ; Sat, 10 Sep 2011 21:39:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 10 Sep 2011 21:39:07 -0000 Received: from p5B085BED.dip.t-dialin.net (EHLO pc.localnet) [91.8.91.237] by mail.gmx.net (mp063) with SMTP; 10 Sep 2011 23:39:07 +0200 X-Authenticated: #13997268 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18r161SVuUrv+NzkLCV00YKdCZC3m9MneABjHaeKH wryE9ClpZakKcc From: Michael Schreckenbauer To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] License question for jdk Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2011 23:39:11 +0200 Message-ID: <131578500.hQD4OROJ9G@pc> User-Agent: KMail/4.7.1 (Linux/2.6.38-gentoo; KDE/4.7.1; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <20110910231519.7cec903d@rohan> References: <2468619.gktNChOZ0Z@pc> <20110910231519.7cec903d@rohan> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: 66fe3759e22a2f4601e1f1604f0014ad On Saturday, 10. September 2011 23:15:19 Alan McKinnon wrote: > On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 17:34:51 +0200 > > Michael Schreckenbauer wrote: > > On Saturday, 10. September 2011 17:19:36 Alex Schuster wrote: > > > Michael Schreckenbauer writes: > > > > On Saturday, 10. September 2011 16:50:30 Alex Schuster wrote: > > > > > What you need to do is to tell portage you accept the > > > > > license by > > > > > putting the >=dev-java/... line > > > > > into /etc/portage/package.license. Or > > > > > you could add the --autounmask-write switch to your emerge > > > > > command, and then use etc-update/dispatch-conf/cfg-update or > > > > > whatever you use to update the config files. > > > > > > > > Ah. This /etc/portage/package.license thing is new to me. > > > > I use ACCEPT_LICENSE in make.conf. > > > > You know, what's the difference (if any)? > > > > > > No, I don't there is any. Just like with ACCEPT_KEYWORDS. It's just > > > cleaner to have this in package.license I think. > > > > > > The man pages for portage and make.conf have some more information > > > on this. > > > > Thanks. The difference is, that package.license is per package. > > So one could set ACCEPT_LICENSE in make.conf and override this > > setting for some packages in package.license. > > Now I wonder, what the use-cases would be? > > Why would one accept a specific license for package A, but not for > > package B? > > I imagine it's more a theoretical and consistency thing rather than > something that has a real need right now. Maybe someone filed a feature > request and Zac figured it was easy to implement as the framework is > already there for the existing package.* stuff. Sounds reasonable. > I could be useful though, I can totally see someone needing to accept > a restrictive license for one package, but not another. > Companies do odd things with licenses, it's quite realistic for a > company to require an agreement of some kind before one may install > certain sources, but this agreement doesn't cover other packages that > have the same license. I can't think of an example right now though. > > Maybe an Adobe EULA for flash would fit the bill - you accept it for > v9 but not for v10 and the user might want to record that fact instead > of just simply masking an ebuild. As I see it, the masking would still be needed. Otherwise portage will bother you with a request to accept the license every time you try an update of world :) Best, Michael