>>>>> On Sat, 9 Feb 2013, Michał Górny wrote: > I don't think that solves the license problem properly. Say, if user > doesn't want non-free software, he's going to have the whole package > masked. He'd have to work-around license + savedconfig.
> Now that I look at it, it seems that the ebuild doesn't even put all > necessary licenses into LICENSE. I may be wrong but the git repo seems > to have a lot of non-standard licenses. Yes, it is a mess and it changes often. You can find an attempt to disentangle it in bug 318841. Ulrich
