Filip Kobierski <[email protected]> writes: > 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...
Yes, that's the big job. > 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? Do you have an alternative proposal? Also, while I'm not sure how I feel about the name myself: is it really unprofessional to call it out, when one may regard the behaviour of such projects as grossly unprofessional? sam
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
