On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 09:51:16 -0400 Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Basically, we just add "commercial" to LICENSE in the ebuild, and (if > wanted or necessary) add "check_license > $licese_required_to_be_accepted" to pkg_setup on the ebuild. While > this will break completely interactive ebuilds until GLEP23 is fully > implemented, a user can add the license to make.conf in an > ACCEPT_LICENSE variable, to keep portage from asking again. This > means when a user does an "emerge -S" they will see the nice little > "commercial" listed under licenses, which will hopefully trigger to > them that this package is not free. Another possible addition is a > "commercial-free" license, which would cover things like America's > Army and Enemy Territory (I'm sure there are others, but I know of > these two) that are free for users to use, but are still commercial > software. Can't say that I exactly like this, mainly because "commercial" wouldn't be a real license and so kinda blurs the meaning of LICENSE. But then one could say the same about "as-is". My other concern is that there is no clear criteria for commercial packages, e.g. are sun-jdk / other fetch restricted packages commercial? That said, it's probably the best approach that doesn't require portage changes. Marius -- Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be Light.' And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better.
pgpOwX5Wsh8zt.pgp
Description: PGP signature
