Re: Gentoo GNU/Linux and non-free packages

[Marek Aaron Sapota <maarons@gnu.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1586 bytes --]

On Fri, Jan 08, 2010 at 05:23:03PM +0200, Yavor Doganov wrote:
> Tassilo Horn wrote:
> > Hm, I don't know how extensively you have tested, but using
> > 
> >   ACCEPT_LICENSE="-* @FSF-APPROVED @OSI-APPROVED"
> 
> This is far from sufficient for an entirely free GNU distro (which all
> distros should be, in an ideal world), because there are packages are
> basically under a free license, but include component or two that are
> clearly non-free, or have dependencies that are non-free.

That will be tracked down by portage, it won't install a GPL-ed package
if it has proprietary dependences.

> 
> Unless Gentoo strips the tarballs to exclude such components, tweaks
> the .ebuilds and dependencies accordingly, etc., this new feature of
> the package manager is not a solution.
> 
> Then comes the problem with incompatible licenses, which Gentoo
> doesn't seem to pursue at all -- it'll happily compile whatever
> combination of USE flags if it's technically possible.  (I might be
> wrong here.)  While less severe than distributing and even silently
> installing non-free software behind users' back, this is an issue that
> should not be ignored.
> 

The use flag combinations can be limited, though I think this would be
upstream package problem - use flags are only more or less --enable-foo
--disable-bar passed to configure script.

> 
> BTW, this sub-thread seems to be off-topic on emacs-devel.
> 
> 

I agree, also this discussion is pointless until Gentoo improves some
things so let's end it.

Happy hacking
Marek Aaron Sapota

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]