"freelicenses" will start huge flamewars about what's a "free" license and what not. Expect about 5-6 mails every week with requests for adding or removing licenses to that definition.
On Fri, Nov 21, 2003 at 11:07:37AM +0100, Sven Vermeulen wrote: > On Thu, Nov 20, 2003 at 10:13:32PM -0500, Aron Griffis wrote: > > As Jason mentioned, putting reasonable defaults into make.defaults > > accomplishes #1. The default might even be ACCEPT_LICENSES='*', in > > which case modification in make.conf would need to be something like > > ACCEPT_LICENSES='-* GPL-1 GPL-2' (which then accomplishes #2) > > I might be just awake, but this idea sparkles in my eyes with a "wow" > subtitle. It is a great idea, and even though it has some rough edges (for > instance we probably shouldn't accept all licenses per default -- you never > know what the future might bring) and can be extended (kinda virtual-like, > such as ACCEPT_LICENSES="freelicenses" which would embody all known free > licenses) it is certainly something to consider. > > Is this the first time this popped up? If not, is there any progress into > creating a draft patch? Or a GLEP? > > Wkr, > Sven Vermeulen -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
