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 ACCEPT_LICENSE is already implemented in >> portage 2.2 (masked). >> > > 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 heard about before. I would say there is the easy workaround: we fix ACCEPT_LICENSE="* -...@eula" and this issue will never pop with a "default" configuration.
But I don't like it because anyone setting ACCEPT_LICENSE to anything will stuck in in. So, why not creating a Generic-Free-License that could be set for packages with no clear/clean license but still free. The con of this solution is we will surely lost some information because we can set LICENSE="Generic-Free-License" or LICENSE="|| ( Generic-Free-License MyCreepyLicense )" because we need to have at least LICENSE="Generic-Free-License". I see no other options. If anyone has an idea or suggestion... Mounir
