On Thu, Sep 22, 2005 at 09:30:20AM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote: > On Wed, 2005-09-21 at 17:55 -0500, Lance Albertson wrote: > > Is this just a one-off implementation until GLEP 23 is implemented, or > > something that will complement it? Whats going to happen to this data > > after GLEP23 gets implemented? I'd hate to see something added simply > > because its a quick one-off solution to make something work. I'd rather > > see people focus on the actual GLEP and moving it along. Of course, if > > this data will just be an added feature of GLEP23, I don't see a problem. > > This really has nothing to do with GLEP23, as it isn't related to any > kind of grouping, or ACCEPT_LICENSE. It is simply a marker to say to > our users: "Hey, you have to buy this for it to work." That is > something that GLEP23 does not provide for in any way.
Actually, it does have to deal with glep23, and you already stated in one of you emails (an "interim solution *now* since I've not heard anything from GLEP23 for some time"). Further, where do you think you're going to migrate the check for this license to? FYI, accept_license checks have been sitting in svn/cvs for about a month, same as use deps. No, you can't use them now in a released portage, but that's not much of a reason to introduce a fake license I'm sitting. Further, a better approach instead of people adhocing yet another band aid in the tree would be to chip in- you want glep23? help bring the *proper*, agreed upon solution to a stable portage, not taking the easier route. The suggested intention of this fake license is also a bit daft imo; what is LICENSE, the metadata? The license the underlying pkg is released under. Commercial is supposed to be mean "it costs money", well, how are you going to deal with opera? Flip off the commercial license now? The original proposed angle (glep23 implementation isn't here) is jumping the gun, and the angle of "it indicates it costs money" isn't proper either. You want to indicate that this *specific* pkg costs money (something not related to the license it's released under I might add)? Stick it in metadata.xml or DESCRIPTION. License has a specific meaning- aside from the fact you're shoving an additional license requirement on people when glep23 hits, you're also blocking anyone from using that as a license group do to the fact you already introduced a psuedo license in instead of a *proper* groupping. So... my 2 cents? No (was obvious already, wasn't it? :) ~harring
pgpyrjkHj2ltZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
