Aleksey Cheusov <vle%gmx.net@localhost> writes: >> The intent is that if the license is Free or Open Source, adding the >> license tag will not cause the package not to build. > > It is still not clear should ALL Free packages (with licence listed in > DEFAULT_ACCEPTABLE_LICENSES) have license tag? Or it may be freely > omitted. Originally we were not tagging Free/Open packages. The idea is that it's just as well to be clear on licensing, and people might want to only use non-copylefted free software, or have some problem with a particular license that is Open or Free. The current rules, once we work the bugs out, will result in license clarity and the ability of pkgsrc users to reject even Free licenses, but the default behavior should be that Free/Open stuff will build without hassle. Now, if you're asking: This seems like an awful lot of work for not enough gain, I basically agree, but some others are into it (wiz for example), and once we have done most things then it's easy to do on new packages. I'm just asking that as people add tags to Free/Open software (if they want to) they not break the central property that Free/Open software builds without having to set anything in ACCEPTABLE_LICENSES, and that non-free software will fail by default.
Attachment:
pgpzu9vigq9gO.pgp
Description: PGP signature