>>>>> On Wed, 20 Feb 2013, Rick \"Zero Chaos\" Farina wrote:
> On 02/20/2013 02:55 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > I am going to respond here because it makes the most sense to me. >> I mostly agree. However, there are not two, but three classes of >> licenses for firmware images: >> >> 1. Free software >> 2. Non-free, but can be redistributed >> 3. Cannot be redistributed >> >> The split between 2 and 3 is the more important one, because we cannot >> mirror things under 3. > I completely agree. I will HAPPILY divide the ebuild up with a nonfree > (or other suggested SANE use flag) to denote the difference between 1 > and 2. None of this is under contest, this choice is all but too easy. > Depending on the licensing issues which arise I may even add in a > separate ebuild. > The issue come in with number 3. Adding a bindist use flag for the > - -9999 ebuild seems sane since it pulls from git and we don't have to > redist it, but is is possible to RESTRICT="bindist? bindist" ? Eh, what? You want to exclude the non-redistributable firmware from binpkgs build by the user? I.e. USE="-bindist" would include everything but USE="bindist" wouldn't? IIUC, you don't need an additional RESTRICT then. > Anyone volunteering to tear through this licensing mess and start > breaking things into groups? Does the WHENCE cover everything that is currently included in your tarball? Ulrich
