On Tue, 2026-03-10 at 17:16 +0000, Filip Kobierski wrote: > Hi Michał, > > The issue you described is real and widespread. > > Maybe one could flag slop packages with a LICENSE variable that is not > accepted by default? > That would allow users to still have the final say in what can run on their > Gentoo systems but would be aware that AI-SLOP license is suboptimal. > Then I imagine the problem would be in marking packages as such... > Also the name of the "LICENSE"; AI-SLOP seems in-line with Gentoo's approach, > alas I in my opinion is unprofessional. Plain AI does not really sound > discouraging. Naming is a secondary issue though. > > What do you think about that?
If a maintainer dislikes something about a project strongly enough to stick this kind of warning label on it, then I imagine they won't want to maintain it anyway. If it's a dependency of something they care about, then they could pass it onto someone else, although they may still be unsatisfied with that. I don't know what else to suggest. Forking is not the answer, as mgorny has written elsewhere. If they're otherwise willing to hold their nose, I think a simplistic label is not going to be sufficient. Different projects are doing different things, and it's not fair to tar them all with the same brush. In addition, everyone has different opinions and tolerances around this. I personally think what chardet did was irresponsible, but I don't have an issue with what KeepassXC are doing. I therefore think the best thing to do is have a free text field in metadata.xml where a maintainer can fully express any concerns along with links to evidence, much like what mgorny has done here. That way, users can make their own fully informed decisions.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
