>> We could add a license, called "commercial" into the tree. This license >> would look like the following.
I would definitly support adding "commercial" as a license group as part of GLEP23 implementation. As part of adding any new commercial license to the tree, developers would have to add the license to the commercial group. >> While this will break completely >> interactive ebuilds until GLEP23 is fully implemented, a user can add >> the license to make.conf in an ACCEPT_LICENSE variable, to keep portage >> from asking again. We wouldnt break anything (hopefully) if we just do this as I specified above. Also, I'm wondering if we truly need check_license in ebuilds. Instead, we could require that all licenses listed in the commercial group be manually added to the ACCEPT_LICENSES line /etc/make.conf before emerging. If the license wasnt added, emerge would stop and ask the user to add the license manually. Therefore, the user would be explicitely indicating their approval of the license by adding it. Implementation could be as simple as ACCEPT_LICENSES not allowing "+commercial" to be defined. It makes no sense, or at least we shouldnt encourage someone to say they agree to all commercial licenses so easily anyway. The default portage ACCEPT_LICENSE would be -commercial. MattM -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
