On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 1:22 AM, Mounir Lamouri volk...@gentoo.org wrote:
Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
Most licenses aren't for usage, but for distribution -- surely you mean
EULAs?
License and EULA is the same for most users and it's exactly the same
for ebuilds/portage.
EULA is an End-User
Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 1:22 AM, Mounir Lamouri volk...@gentoo.org wrote:
Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
Most licenses aren't for usage, but for distribution -- surely you mean
EULAs?
License and EULA is the same for most users and it's exactly the same
Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 3:56 AM, Mounir Lamouri volk...@gentoo.org wrote:
This feature (ACCEPT_LICENSE) is important to remove check_license()
call from ebuilds which need user input while merging. Interaction in
ebuild should be avoided and it is a blocker for a
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Fri, 29 May 2009 19:17:03 +0200
Mounir Lamouri volk...@gentoo.org wrote:
Most of GLEP 23 features have already been implemented in portage.
Some since
a long time (at least in stable portage) like multiple licenses and
conditional
licenses. License group and
On Mon, 01 Jun 2009 23:01:04 +0200
Mounir Lamouri volk...@gentoo.org wrote:
The main show-stopper for this last time it came up was all those X
packages using their package name as a licence. Have you thought of
how to get that glaring QA issue addressed?
That's a very bad issue I never
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Mon, 01 Jun 2009 23:01:04 +0200
Mounir Lamouri volk...@gentoo.org wrote:
The main show-stopper for this last time it came up was all those X
packages using their package name as a licence. Have you thought of
how to get that glaring QA issue addressed?
On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 3:56 AM, Mounir Lamouri volk...@gentoo.org wrote:
This feature (ACCEPT_LICENSE) is important to remove check_license()
call from ebuilds which need user input while merging. Interaction in
ebuild should be avoided and it is a blocker for a fully functional
portage
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mounir Lamouri wrote:
I've attached a script to count how many instances of each license
there are, and how many instances in each group. Here are the group
counts I get:
@FSF-APPROVED 23641
@GPL-COMPATIBLE 22956
@OSI-APPROVED 23284
@other 5998
Richard Freeman wrote:
Mounir Lamouri wrote:
It looks like some licenses need acceptance.
I prefer the wording: some software vendors claim that their licenses
must be accepted to use the software. I'm not aware of any law which
requires a license to use software - at least not inside the
Disclaimer - I too am not a lawyer.
Mounir Lamouri wrote:
I'm not a lawyer so I can't say for sure some software _need_ explicit
license acceptance to be used. However, I'm quite sure using a software
means accept the license.
Someone experienced in this area is welcome for clarifications.
Hi,
In the context of my GSOC [1] I need to get GLEP 23 [2] fully
implemented and
this means get ACCEPT_LICENSE used with a default value and bug 152593 [3]
fixed.
= GLEP 23 summary =
Most of GLEP 23 features have already been implemented in portage. Some
since
a long time (at least in stable
11 matches
Mail list logo
