On Sun, 2006-11-26 at 18:52 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Sunday 26 November 2006 18:38, Marius Mauch wrote:
> > Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > is there a way in the new GLEP to say "never bother me with any license
> > > bullcrap" ? i made sure the current check_license() fun
On Sun, 2006-11-26 at 13:07 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Saturday 18 November 2006 02:53, Marius Mauch wrote:
> > Anyone interested in this feature should review the attached version.
>
> i've come to the party a bit late ... i cant seem to divine the answer to my
> question from reading thi
On Monday 27 November 2006 11:42, Marius Mauch wrote:
> Might want to reread bug 152593 in detail, summary being "legal issues".
no one in there is qualified to give any sort of legal opinion and/or advice
if you want a real answer, talk to the pro-bono lawyers that are helping out
the Foundatio
On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 10:53:43 -0500
Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Monday 27 November 2006 10:48, Marius Mauch wrote:
> > Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Sunday 26 November 2006 18:38, Marius Mauch wrote:
> > > > Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > >
On Mon, Nov 27, 2006 at 05:42:31PM +0100, Marius Mauch wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 10:53:43 -0500
> Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Monday 27 November 2006 10:48, Marius Mauch wrote:
> > > Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > On Sunday 26 November 2006 18:38, Mariu
On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 10:53:43 -0500
Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Monday 27 November 2006 10:48, Marius Mauch wrote:
> > Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Sunday 26 November 2006 18:38, Marius Mauch wrote:
> > > > Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > >
On Monday 27 November 2006 10:48, Marius Mauch wrote:
> Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sunday 26 November 2006 18:38, Marius Mauch wrote:
> > > Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > is there a way in the new GLEP to say "never bother me with any
> > > > license bullcra
On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 18:52:19 -0500
Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sunday 26 November 2006 18:38, Marius Mauch wrote:
> > Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > is there a way in the new GLEP to say "never bother me with any
> > > license bullcrap" ? i made sure the curren
On Sunday 26 November 2006 18:38, Marius Mauch wrote:
> Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > is there a way in the new GLEP to say "never bother me with any license
> > bullcrap" ? i made sure the current check_license() function respected
> > the idea of "*" so that i can put this in my
On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 14:03:08 -0500
Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It is used to mask the package, correct. When a package is masked, it
> gives the output of the license, or, if the license it too large (I
> think Marius set it at 20K) informs the user to read the license file.
> I
On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 13:07:21 -0500
Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> is there a way in the new GLEP to say "never bother me with any license
> bullcrap" ? i made sure the current check_license() function respected the
> idea of "*" so that i can put this in my make.conf:
> ACCEPT_LICE
On Saturday 18 November 2006 02:53, Marius Mauch wrote:
> Anyone interested in this feature should review the attached version.
i've come to the party a bit late ... i cant seem to divine the answer to my
question from reading this thread and the GLEP and the bugzilla, so perhaps
someone can exp
On Wed, 2006-11-22 at 15:53 +0100, Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
> > RESTRICT="interactive" should be restricted to only the contents of
> > the ebuild. ACCEPT_LICENSE="RTCW-ETEULA" emerge enemy-territory is
> > *not* interactive,
>
> That's what I've missed then. I didn't realise that setting
> ACCEPT_
On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 14:03:08 -0500
Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-11-21 at 17:59 +0100, Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
> > Am I correct in thinking that the ACCEPT_LICENSE behaviour will just
> > affect how portage calculates whether something can be installed or
> > not (much l
On Wed, 2006-11-22 at 01:10 +0100, Marien Zwart wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 21, 2006 at 04:37:39PM -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > Well, we specifically didn't allow a "*" setting because of this.
>
> Ah, I missed that. Thanks.
>
> > Perhaps we should make it simple and specify that no interactive li
On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 12:13:33 -0800 Donnie Berkholz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 00:10:59 -0800 Donnie Berkholz
| > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > | > So you're saying that the X maintainers have more important
| > | > things to do than fixing their ebu
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 00:10:59 -0800 Donnie Berkholz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > So you're saying that the X maintainers have more important things
| > to do than fixing their ebuilds to follow policy?
|
| You keep saying it breaks policy but you've never actually cited a
On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 00:10:59 -0800 Donnie Berkholz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > So you're saying that the X maintainers have more important things
| > to do than fixing their ebuilds to follow policy?
|
| You keep saying it breaks policy but you've never actually cited any
| policy it breaks.
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 13:49:12 -0800 Mike Doty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| The other option is to submit patches for X and KDE and Gnome to use
| a unified license. At least in the X case, it's not that the patches
| arn't welcome, it's that the maintainers have things mor
On Mon, Nov 20, 2006 at 08:05:03PM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> On Sunday 19 November 2006 06:25, Brian Harring wrote:
> > The current default in portage however is that of ACCEPT_LICENSE=*;
> > since portage doesn't yet filter on licenses, and since interactive
> > ebuilds already exist, _that_ is
On Sunday 19 November 2006 06:25, Brian Harring wrote:
> Left out that if it's unset, it should default to ACCEPT_LICENSE=* ,
> meaning no license filtering.
[...]
> > Backwards Compatibility
> > ===
> >
> > There should be no change to the user experience without the user
> >
> > And then create a KDE licence group, and a Gnome licence group, and
> > so on? Remember that there are only a few X licences once you ignore
> > copyright line differences, just as there are only a few KDE
> > licences once you ignore copyright line differences.
> >
> The other option is to su
On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 22:59:36 +0100 "Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| So no, there's no need to submit patches to the KDE team. I think the
| same applies to GNOME, but I'll leave those who handle that to answer
| by theirselves.
Right. Gnome is also correct, despite having l
On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 13:49:12 -0800 Mike Doty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| The other option is to submit patches for X and KDE and Gnome to use
| a unified license. At least in the X case, it's not that the patches
| arn't welcome, it's that the maintainers have things more important
| to do than
On Saturday 18 November 2006 22:49, Mike Doty wrote:
> The other option is to submit patches for X and KDE and Gnome to use a
> unified license.
Would like to precise that KDE team reports correctly as GPL-2 or LGPL-2.1 the
licenses for every package. The only problem there is that there's no way
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 15:22:36 -0600 Mike Doty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 08:53:36 +0100 Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| > wrote:
| > | Anyone interested in this feature should review the attached
| > | version. Unless there
On Sat, Nov 18, 2006 at 01:25:57PM -0800, Brian Harring wrote:
> >...
Minor addendum here (dotting the i's as it were), but valid license
names aren't actually defined anywhere; would suggest nailing down the
exact rules of it.
[a-Z][0-9]-_. looks to roughly cover it.
~harring
pgp1L
On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 15:22:36 -0600 Mike Doty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 08:53:36 +0100 Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| > wrote:
| > | Anyone interested in this feature should review the attached
| > | version. Unless there are major objections (or
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 08:53:36 +0100 Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| Anyone interested in this feature should review the attached version.
| Unless there are major objections (or we find large problems in the
| implementation) this will be merged in one of the next
On Sat, Nov 18, 2006 at 08:53:36AM +0100, Marius Mauch wrote:
> Anyone interested in this feature should review the attached version.
> Unless there are major objections (or we find large problems in the
> implementation) this will be merged in one of the next portage releases
> (definitely not in
On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 08:53:36 +0100 Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| Anyone interested in this feature should review the attached version.
| Unless there are major objections (or we find large problems in the
| implementation) this will be merged in one of the next portage
| releases (defin
31 matches
Mail list logo
