Mailing List Archive

Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> IMHO the main disadvantage is that ebuilds would have to be converted
> to EAPI-4 for this,

Why do they _have_ to? I understand that it's optional and that we can
take time with it until a new license (e.g. GPL-4) arrives.
Also, scripts/tools can help with the transition.


> which is quite an effort for a very small
> improvement.

- It's reducing future maintenance costs on new license arrival
- It's adding clarity and allows us to express the actual license
of "GPL 2 or later" packages much better.
- It increases chances of correct labeling of future ebuilds




Sebastian

On Sat, Sep 05, 2009 at 04:03:25PM +0200, Maciej Mrozowski wrote:
> On Friday 04 of September 2009 22:08:02 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 22:04:46 +0200
>
> > R?mi Cardona <remi@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > Having tools to manipulate those variables is very misleading since
> > > users will (rightfully) assume that we've done our homework and that
> > > upstream did too.
>
> > Why not use EAPI 4 to make sure people have done that homework then?
>
> Because it won't make *upstream* do their homework.
> I suppose you volunteer to make this homework for Gentoo to fulfill new EAPI
> requirements as I assume your lawyer skills equals the will to propose yet
> another EAPI.
> Therefore I fully support this idea.
>
> --
> regards
> MM

What is your point? If your goal is to come across as a bitter person with a lot
of hate then you've succeeded. Tone it down please as you're not contributing
anything useful to the discussion like that.

Ciaran's really not making homework up for gentoo. Why, remi stated himself that
we have homework to do(and we sometimes don't do that homework) so unless you're
just trying to pick a fight I don't see what you're trying to say. Please don't
do that.


Regards,
Thomas
--
---------
Thomas Anderson
Gentoo Developer
/////////
Areas of responsibility:
AMD64, Secretary to the Gentoo Council
---------

Le 06/09/2009 02:34, Thomas Anderson a écrit :
> Ciaran's really not making homework up for gentoo. Why, remi stated himself that
> we have homework to do(and we sometimes don't do that homework)

I did, but I also stated upstream might have some homework to do
themselves. Here's a list of things that :

- COPYING automagically copied by automake (that would make the file
be GPL-2+ or GPL-3+)
- code "stolen" from other projects under a non-compatible/viral license
- bundled libraries
- code that's so old, no-one really knows what the original license
(XFree86/Xorg) is or who the copyright holders are (Mozilla)

And I haven't even had my morning coffee yet.

Even if _we_ do our homework, all those reasons above might mislead us
into thinking a package has license ABC, while in fact it's under
license ABC+ and XYZ.

I don't see how a new EAPI will help us with all the aforementioned
issues. And for the proposed LICENSE sets to work correctly, the whole
tree needs to be audited, and each new _version_ of each package needs
to be rigorously checked if we want to provide something users can _trust_.

Cheers,

Rémi

Zac Medico wrote:
>> I propose support for license groups in ebuilds then, I guess.
>
> That seems like a reasonable solution. So, an ebuild can do
> something like LICENSE="@GPL-2+" and that will expand to whatever
> the definition of the GPL-2+ license group happens to be. When a new
> version of GPL license comes out, we simple add it to that group,
> and none of the corresponding ebuilds have to be updated.

I made a bug from that so it doesn't get lost.

https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=287192



Sebastian

On Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 04:01:29AM +0200, Sebastian Pipping wrote:
> Zac Medico wrote:
> >> I propose support for license groups in ebuilds then, I guess.
> >
> > That seems like a reasonable solution. So, an ebuild can do
> > something like LICENSE="@GPL-2+" and that will expand to whatever
> > the definition of the GPL-2+ license group happens to be. When a new
> > version of GPL license comes out, we simple add it to that group,
> > and none of the corresponding ebuilds have to be updated.
>
> I made a bug from that so it doesn't get lost.
>
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=287192

Actually, it's not lost. I've write a patch for the GLEP-23 and I'm
waiting for an answer from the glep team.

--
Mounir