On Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 04:01:29AM +0200, Sebastian Pipping wrote:
> Zac Medico wrote:
> >> I propose support for license groups in ebuilds then, I guess.
> >
> > That seems like a reasonable solution. So, an ebuild can do
> > something like LICENSE="@GPL-2+" and that will expand to whatever
> > t
Zac Medico wrote:
>> I propose support for license groups in ebuilds then, I guess.
>
> That seems like a reasonable solution. So, an ebuild can do
> something like LICENSE="@GPL-2+" and that will expand to whatever
> the definition of the GPL-2+ license group happens to be. When a new
> version o
Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> IMHO the main disadvantage is that ebuilds would have to be converted
> to EAPI-4 for this,
Why do they _have_ to? I understand that it's optional and that we can
take time with it until a new license (e.g. GPL-4) arrives.
Also, scripts/tools can help with the transition.
Mounir Lamouri wrote:
> Zac Medico wrote:
>> Sebastian Pipping wrote:
>>
>>> I propose support for license groups in ebuilds then, I guess.
>>>
>> That seems like a reasonable solution. So, an ebuild can do
>> something like LICENSE="@GPL-2+" and that will expand to whatever
>> the definiti
> On Sat, 05 Sep 2009, Mounir Lamouri wrote:
> I suppose adding group license support in ebuilds will fix the problem
> too. But I see a few disadvantages like:
> - new behavior for @ operator: it will not only expand a group but also
> adding a || operator (only for LICENSE)
> - devs will h
Zac Medico wrote:
> Sebastian Pipping wrote:
>
>> I propose support for license groups in ebuilds then, I guess.
>>
> That seems like a reasonable solution. So, an ebuild can do
> something like LICENSE="@GPL-2+" and that will expand to whatever
> the definition of the GPL-2+ license group
Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> On Fri, 04 Sep 2009, Zac Medico wrote:
>>> I propose support for license groups in ebuilds then, I guess.
>
>> That seems like a reasonable solution. So, an ebuild can do
>> something like LICENSE="@GPL-2+" and that will expand to whatever
>> the definition of the GPL-
> On Fri, 04 Sep 2009, Zac Medico wrote:
>> I propose support for license groups in ebuilds then, I guess.
> That seems like a reasonable solution. So, an ebuild can do
> something like LICENSE="@GPL-2+" and that will expand to whatever
> the definition of the GPL-2+ license group happens to b
Sebastian Pipping wrote:
>> However, a
>> group will not add the information in the ebuild. In other words, I will
>> have GPL-2 and GPL-3 with GPL-2+ in ACCEPT_LICENSE but I will not have
>> GPL-2+ packages if i set only GPL-3 in ACCEPT_LICENSE.
>
> I propose support for license groups in ebuilds
Mounir Lamouri wrote:
>> However I do notice that "GPL-2+" could make things easier.
>> Why not introduce a license group for it like @GPL-2+ or so, instead?
>> That would be transparent and use existing means.
>>
> I don't understand where the black magic is.
It would be in the implementation
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 5:12 PM, Mounir Lamouri wrote:
> It's even worst when we try to use ACCEPT_LICENSE to have a free
> operating system.
FWIW: Given the state of ebuilds, I think this should never be
attempted unless the user knows it may not be accurate[1]. We should
not attempt to guarante
Sebastian Pipping wrote:
> Mounir Lamouri wrote:
>
>> It's even worst when we try to use ACCEPT_LICENSE to have a free
>> operating system. Let's suppose 'free' in fsf free and osf free,
>> LGPL-2.1 is free for both but LGPL-2 isn't and we can suppose, most
>> LGPL-2 licensed packages in the tre
Rémi Cardona wrote:
> Le 01/09/2009 00:12, Mounir Lamouri a écrit :
>> Hi,
>>
>> As you should know, GLEP 23 [1] introduced USE flags conditions in
>> LICENSE variable and || operator in addition of licenses groups and
>> ACCEPT_LICENSE variable.
>>
>> [1] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-00
Mounir Lamouri wrote:
> It's even worst when we try to use ACCEPT_LICENSE to have a free
> operating system. Let's suppose 'free' in fsf free and osf free,
> LGPL-2.1 is free for both but LGPL-2 isn't and we can suppose, most
> LGPL-2 licensed packages in the tree are LGPL-2+ actually.
Are you awa
Le 01/09/2009 00:12, Mounir Lamouri a écrit :
Hi,
As you should know, GLEP 23 [1] introduced USE flags conditions in
LICENSE variable and || operator in addition of licenses groups and
ACCEPT_LICENSE variable.
[1] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0023.html
/me still thinks LICENSE shou
15 matches
Mail list logo
