Rich Freeman posted on Thu, 03 Jan 2013 10:40:08 -0500 as excerpted: > On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 9:39 AM, Ulrich Mueller <u...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> We could easily solve this by adding a "binary-only" or >> "no-source-code" tag to such packages. It would be included in the >> @BINARY-REDISTRIBUTABLE license group, but not in @FREE. So such >> packages would be excluded for users with ACCEPT_LICENSE="-* @FREE". > > As long as it is also marked with the BSD license I don't have a problem > with this. The license is, in fact, BSD, so we do need to keep that > info around.
What about two licenses, BSD, and BSD-no-sources? The second license file would simply note at the top that there's no source available, but the license is BSD, with the BSD license underneath the note. That would allow the first to be included in @FREE, while the second was only included in @BINARY_REDISTRIBUTABLE. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
