Mailing List Archive: New-style virtuals LICENSE variable

Just to bring to a wider audience the discussion that we had on bug
#140180 [1].

While documenting new-style virtuals for devmanual we began to discuss
what the LICENSE variable for the virtual ebuilds should contain. For
the reasons listed on the bug, we came to a conclusion that the LICENSE
variable should be empty for these ebuilds.

A brief list of the reasons:

* the ebuild doesn't really install anything
* the ebuild itself is already licensed under GPLv2 as is every
other ebuild in the tree
* ACCEPT_LICENSE accepts an empty LICENSE, so the virtual is
automatically accepted
* if the above were not true, we would have the fun maintainence
nightmare of having to list every license that could satisfy the
virtual in the LICENSE variable

So long as everyone understands this, I'll go ahead and commit the new
documentation to devmanual and ask zmedico to commit the repoman change
to make sure LICENSE="" in the virtual category.

Thanks,

[1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=140180
--
Mark Loeser
email - halcy0n AT gentoo DOT org
web - http://www.halcy0n.com

(Sorry for the spam g-dev, I forgot to send this to dev-announce as
well).

----- Forwarded message from Mark Loeser <halcy0n@gentoo.org> -----

> Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 20:03:39 -0500
> From: Mark Loeser <halcy0n@gentoo.org>
> To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
> Subject: [gentoo-dev] New-style virtuals LICENSE variable
> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-09)
>
> Just to bring to a wider audience the discussion that we had on bug
> #140180 [1].
>
> While documenting new-style virtuals for devmanual we began to discuss
> what the LICENSE variable for the virtual ebuilds should contain. For
> the reasons listed on the bug, we came to a conclusion that the LICENSE
> variable should be empty for these ebuilds.
>
> A brief list of the reasons:
>
> * the ebuild doesn't really install anything
> * the ebuild itself is already licensed under GPLv2 as is every
> other ebuild in the tree
> * ACCEPT_LICENSE accepts an empty LICENSE, so the virtual is
> automatically accepted
> * if the above were not true, we would have the fun maintainence
> nightmare of having to list every license that could satisfy the
> virtual in the LICENSE variable
>
> So long as everyone understands this, I'll go ahead and commit the new
> documentation to devmanual and ask zmedico to commit the repoman change
> to make sure LICENSE="" in the virtual category.
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> [1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=140180
> --
> Mark Loeser
> email - halcy0n AT gentoo DOT org
> web - http://www.halcy0n.com

----- End forwarded message -----