Mike Frysinger wrote: > This is your monthly friendly reminder ! Same bat time (typically > the 2nd Thursday at 2000 UTC / 1600 EST), same bat channel > (#gentoo-council @ irc.freenode.net) ! > > If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even > vote on, let us know ! Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole > Gentoo dev list to see. Following Richard recommandation [1] I propose to vote for default ACCEPT_LICENSE value sets to: ACCEPT_LICENSE="* -...@eula" with @EULA a license group including every licenses considered as EULA which means needing approval by user. This is including most commercial licenses. At least, every packages using check_license() from eutils.eclass should have their license add in @EULA group license.
Why this default value ? My initial post [2] mentioned 3 values. I choose the one I described the worst because of issues reported. Indeed, Richard [3] reported he didn't want to have a too restrictive value. This one is the less restrictive we can have. In addition, Ciaran McCreesh reported an issue with badly licensed ebuilds like most X packages [4]. This issue was a blocker for a too restrictive default value. With the proposed value, bad licensed packages will not be blocked. At least, by default. Setting this default value as soon as possible is the best compromise. It will put this feature in portage and let people use it. Packages needing user approval will be blocked and then fix bug 152593 [5]. In addition, users setting ACCEPT_LICENSE to a more restrictive value will help to catch bad licensed ebuilds by filing bugs. Finally, it is removing a reason for interactiveness (via check_license()) into ebuilds. This could be a first step for a new default value in the future (when all licenses will be fixed). So, may the council vote on this default value for ACCEPT_LICENSE ? [1] can't find something in gmame nor in archives.g.o, you should add the year after the "reminder for $month" ;) [2] http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_d5c1e7285399ebc27a74bdd02cb4d037.xml [3] http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_f391139d825eb793cf0694add4f39d93.xml [4] http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_d5c1e7285399ebc27a74bdd02cb4d037.xml [5] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=152593 Thanks, Mounir
