Alan Barrett <apb@cequrux.com> writes:

> Please could we also have a way of accepting a particular licence
> only for a particular package, instead of accepting that licence
> for all packages.  I had private patches to allow me to use
> ${ACCEPTABLE_LICENSES.${PKGBASE}} for this purpose, but they seem to
> have been lost in a recent merge so I'd need to re-implement them.

You reimplementing this and committing it sounds good to me :-) I don't
want it badly enough to write the code, but I think its entirely
sensible.

> I have also experimented with abusing the LICENSE variable by adding
> keywords like "adware", "spyware", "missing-source" to the LICENSE
> for packages that do things I don't like at run time, or that do not
> have sources available.  It would probably be better to invent another
> variable for this sort of thing, if anybody is interested in it.

This is potentially messy, but valuable.  I think another variable would
be the way to go; LICENSE is hard enough, and some of these concerns are
orthogonal to licensing.