Hi,
According to GLEP 23 [1], the LICENSE variable regulates the software
that is installed on a system. There is however some ambiguity in
this: should it cover the actual files installed on the system, or
everything that is included in the package's tarball? This question
was asked several times
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/01/2014 05:28 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
Hi, According to GLEP 23 [1], the LICENSE variable regulates the
software that is installed on a system. There is however some
ambiguity in this: should it cover the actual files installed on
the
On 01/01/2014 05:28 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
Hi,
According to GLEP 23 [1], the LICENSE variable regulates the software
that is installed on a system. There is however some ambiguity in
this: should it cover the actual files installed on the system, or
everything that is included in the
On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 8:51 PM, Michael Orlitzky m...@gentoo.org wrote:
In essence, I don't want to *use* code that isn't @FREE. This includes
the installed files, of course, but also the build system (that I use
temporarily). We could generalize this to any file accessed during
emerge to be
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/01/2014 08:51 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
On 01/01/2014 05:28 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
Hi,
According to GLEP 23 [1], the LICENSE variable regulates the software
that is installed on a system. There is however some ambiguity in
this: should
On 01/01/2014 09:10 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 8:51 PM, Michael Orlitzky m...@gentoo.org wrote:
In essence, I don't want to *use* code that isn't @FREE. This includes
the installed files, of course, but also the build system (that I use
temporarily). We could generalize
On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 9:19 PM, Michael Orlitzky m...@gentoo.org wrote:
Is there a real example where the license matters for something
redistributed to yourself?
Well, yourself is a loose term. If I were to redistribute MS
Windows across 300 PCs for my employer I suspect some people would
On 01/01/2014 09:13 PM, Rick Zero_Chaos Farina wrote:
What use case is there for having the LICENSE apply to anything else?
Some of us do redistribute the entire source package, so it does matter.
If it doesn't matter to you as a user then you can always leave it
unset and you remain
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/01/2014 09:40 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
On 01/01/2014 09:13 PM, Rick Zero_Chaos Farina wrote:
What use case is there for having the LICENSE apply to anything else?
Some of us do redistribute the entire source package, so it does matter.
On 01/01/2014 09:38 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 9:19 PM, Michael Orlitzky m...@gentoo.org wrote:
Is there a real example where the license matters for something
redistributed to yourself?
Well, yourself is a loose term. If I were to redistribute MS
Windows across 300
On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 9:50 PM, Michael Orlitzky m...@gentoo.org wrote:
But Gentoo can't distribute MS Windows to you in the first place. Is
there a package that Gentoo can distribute to you, but you can't
redistribute within your organization?
Well, ACCEPT_LICENSE is about more than just
From: Sebastian Luther sebastianlut...@gmx.de
---
bin/repoman | 12 +++-
1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/bin/repoman b/bin/repoman
index d1542e9..2a332a7 100755
--- a/bin/repoman
+++ b/bin/repoman
@@ -78,7 +78,7 @@ from portage.output import
On Wed, 2014-01-01 at 23:46 +0100, sebastianlut...@gmx.de wrote:
From: Sebastian Luther sebastianlut...@gmx.de
xmatch returns _pkg_str instances these days. They require metadata
access, which cp_list doesn't have. That means that writing cp_list
results into the xmatch cache breaks xmatch
13 matches
Mail list logo
