On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 21:43:56 +0200 Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 12:50:01 -0500 > Grant Goodyear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Marius Mauch wrote: [Thu Oct 26 2006, 12:02:59PM CDT] > > > Ok, as there is currently a lot of work going on for GLEP 23 > > > (licese based visibility filtering aka ACCEPT_LICENSE) the topic > > > of license groups came up, in particular the way how they should > > > be (technically) defined. > > > > > > The simplest way is a line based format > > > <groupname> <license1> ... <licenseN> > > > > At the risk of reopening a large can of worms, can somebody explain > > to me why the license groups idea won't run into the same conceptual > > issues that derailed GLEP 29 (USE groups)? Am I missing something > > obvious? > > Maybe my memory is wrong, but wasn't the problem only that people > couldn't agree on one set of semantics for negations and being afraid > of confusing users? In that case I don't see a big problem as long as > the semantics are clearly defined, as most users will probably stick > with just one predefined group (if they use this feature at all) > adjusted by a few handpicked licenses. Little discussion in #gentoo-portage resulted in the conclusion that license groups may only contain positive elements, and negating a license group will negate all elements contained in it. This avoids the nasty problem of double negation that was IIRC one of the killers for GLEP 29. Marius -- Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be Light.' And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better. -- [email protected] mailing list
