On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 9:39 AM, Ulrich Mueller <u...@gentoo.org> wrote: > We could easily solve this by adding a "binary-only" or > "no-source-code" tag to such packages. It would be included in the > @BINARY-REDISTRIBUTABLE license group, but not in @FREE. So such > packages would be excluded for users with ACCEPT_LICENSE="-* @FREE".
As long as it is also marked with the BSD license I don't have a problem with this. The license is, in fact, BSD, so we do need to keep that info around. > > Thinking about the name, "no-source-code" might be a better choice > than "binary-only". As the GPL defines it, "The source code for a work > means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it." > This may be binary, e.g. for pictures in a bitmap format. I understand the distinction adds value to our users, but I find it amusing that a computer scientist would even try to define the term "source code." :) Rich
