On Wed, 2005-09-21 at 18:54 +0100, José Carlos Cruz Costa wrote: > If it's commercial, the company in question should (and must) allow an > ebuild for is product, like what happens with rpms and other packages. > Adding commercial ebuilds to portage is like tainting the kernel with > binary drivers.
Umm... no. An ebuild is just a recipe for fetching/building a package. It isn't the same as modification and redistribution (ala RPM) in any way. It is *nothing* like tainting the kernel and this conversation has *nothing* to do with what I asked an opinion on. I'm trying to ask a technical opinion on a technical issue. There's no need to pull in any political garbage into the discussion, as that only fans the flames. > Remember that are a lot of people that don't want to use that kind of > software. There are people that doesn't have even xorg and have to > sync all the ebuilds from portage. Those people are the exact reason I am wanting to do this. Right now, they see "License: DOOM3" when they do an "emerge -S"... I'm proposing they would see a "License: DOOM3 commercial" instead. Anyway, please try to refrain from hijacking my thread into some pseudo-political stance. I'm not making one or asking for one. I'm asking for acceptance on a technical solution for some users that allows them to make a political decision, without making any decisions for them. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering - Strategic Lead Games - Developer Gentoo Linux
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
