On Friday 21 November 2003 00:12, Heschi Kreinick wrote: > Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > >On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 23:37:08 +0200 Wayne Oliver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > >| You can take an approach similar to debian simply put > >| them in a "non-free" folder in portage, possibly put a banner on > >| the ebuild informing the user tha it's "non-free" ??? > > > >Hmm, maybe we should implement a keyword in the ebuild that tells > > people under what licence a package is distributed. That way, it > > would be easy for the user to check and avoid > > non-Free-as-in-Stallman software if they were that way inclined. > > > >I propose that we call this keyword 'LICENSE' (US spelling seems to > > be policy...), add it to every ebuild and make repoman check that > > it's there. > > > >Oh, wait... > > If only the world were that simple. But in reality developers never, > ever anticipate user's needs that way :-/ > I mean, if they did there would be an ACCEPT_LICENSE setting > scheduled to be implemented in make.conf to do exactly what this guy > wants. But no...that would be too easy... > *heavy sigh* > Ah well. We can always dream, eh? > -Heschi
Well portage has that, but one doesn't need to add these 'free' licenses to it. And the automatic addition of accepted licenses doesn't work yet, but I think it's under way. This was developed, because some games need eula's accepted when installed. So if one adds license to the ACCEPT_LICENSES or something like that. Then these ebuild does not need ones acceptance before installing. The other way that these licence issues are handled is the manual fetching of the source / binary package needed in some ebuilds. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
