Rémi Cardona wrote: > Unless people dedicate time and effort, ACCEPT_LICENSE is useless.
Well, I think an incomplete tool is better than no tool at all. Even though it's far from perfect, I still found it very useful to create a free system. I'm certainly interested in helping to improve it. > I'd say this is probably better suited for gentoo-project, but it's > probably ok to start here, to gauge interest :) Thanks, I'll subscribe to gentoo-project also. Jeremy Olexa wrote: > File bugs mate. Licensing is not exactly clear to all users or devs. As > can be seen here[1] for dos2unix. It sounds like you care in this area, > so get involved. That looks like a great starting point, thanks. The bug you mentioned has been fixed already! Robin H. Johnson wrote: > The COPYRIGHT file in dos2unix is actually a 2-clause BSD license. I've > updated the ebuild suitably. Thanks, much appreciated. > File a bug with some ebuilds. It looks like somebody already has. See http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=266157. I tested the latest ebuild, and it worked fine (see comment #59.) What would have to be done to get it in the main tree? > A profile is not the answer here. > An optional DEP block || ( media-fonts/corefonts ... ) where the other > item does resolve using ACCEPT_LICENSES is what should be used. I'll have to read through the devmanual, thanks for the pointer. > In your case, I propose that we add one or more stacked groups, with an > initial content as such... I'll start working on expanding LIBRE-FREE-1 then. I assume a bug report would be the correct place to suggest this when I've made a decent start?
