>>>>> On Thu, 3 Jan 2013, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 9:39 AM, Ulrich Mueller <[email protected]> wrote: >> We could easily solve this by adding a "binary-only" or >> "no-source-code" tag to such packages. It would be included in the >> @BINARY-REDISTRIBUTABLE license group, but not in @FREE. So such >> packages would be excluded for users with ACCEPT_LICENSE="-* @FREE".
> As long as it is also marked with the BSD license I don't have a > problem with this. The license is, in fact, BSD, so we do need to > keep that info around. >> Thinking about the name, "no-source-code" might be a better choice >> than "binary-only". As the GPL defines it, "The source code for a >> work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications >> to it." This may be binary, e.g. for pictures in a bitmap format. > I understand the distinction adds value to our users, but I find it > amusing that a computer scientist would even try to define the term > "source code." :) Coming back to this old thread. I've recently added a "no-source-code" license file [1]. This should be used for packages whose license would otherwise match @FREE, but that don't qualify as free software because of the missing source code. Obviously, "no-source-code" alone isn't a license, so it cannot be the only element of an ebuild's LICENSE variable. Ulrich [1] http://sources.gentoo.org/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/gentoo-x86/licenses/no-source-code?view=markup
pgpAXW63fq3P2.pgp
Description: PGP signature
