On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 4:06 AM Neil Bothwick <n...@digimed.co.uk> wrote: > > As Andreas mentioned, the LICENSE setting is probably a more reliable way > of excluding such packages. By only allowing open source licences you > prevent the installation of proprietary binary packages. You can still > install the *-bin packages as they are mostly convenience packages to > save you lengthy compilation by using the developer's provided binary > packages of open source software.
There might be the really odd case of something that has an FOSS license but which is available binary-only, either because it was never packaged for Gentoo in source form, or because it actually is a binary by nature. These are pretty rare and honestly I'm not sure if we have any in our repos. I do remember seeing the odd case of some project that uses GPL for its license but there is no source. It wasn't that there wasn't source code available - the project didn't have any source. Such as using a GPL license for a photograph or something (not what it was intended for, but probably not illegal). In any case, if you set your license filters appropriately, and bindist appropriately, you will end up with a system that completely complies with your license requirements, binary packages or otherwise, so you won't get in trouble for redistribution/etc. -- Rich
