Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg%britannica.bec.de@localhost> writes: > On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 09:06:11AM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote: >> Do we really want to be bumping the pkg_install version every time we >> add a license to DEFAULT_ACCEPTABLE_LICENSES? Perhaps so, but I suppose >> that's not the same as bumping the required version. > > (a) If you have an old version, you can always add it to > ACCEPTABLE_LICENSES. That is as much work as picking up a newer > "authoritive" version. It doesn't force a required bump. true. > (b) I strongly hope that the list of licenses converges soon to a stable > set. I don't think that's going to happen. But I think that after about 6 months from now the rate of addition and more importantly the number of packages for which recent additions matter will be low. > That said, I would also prefer if the licenses themselve would be > annotated to whether or not they are acceptable, but that's a different > question. I suppose there is that - we have a rule that non-Free/Open get -license suffix,and Free/Open don't, so it could be derived from that.
Description: PGP signature