[arch-dev-public] Definition of non-free for repo-reorg

[Dan McGee]

On 7/12/07, Paul Mattal <paul at mattal.com> wrote:
> Aaron Griffin wrote:
> > On 7/12/07, Paul Mattal <paul at mattal.com> wrote:
> >> Damir Perisa wrote:
> >>> Thursday 12 July 2007, Simo Leone wrote:
> >>>  | I still don't see the need. We've never bothered in the past and
> >>>  | it's just making things more complicated, why bother now?
> >>>
> >>> i agree
> >>>
> >>> why making all this mess?
> >>>
> >>> to satisfy the fundamentalists, i would suggest, that you can specify
> >>> in pacman.conf, what licences you agree to and what licences you do
> >>> not agree to. then pacman will know what is "allowed" to be
> >>> installed.
> >>> whenever a new licence comes up (with a new pkg) pacman would ask: do
> >>> you agree to licence XYZ? licence XYZ can be found
> >>> under /path/to/licence if you want to read it. Y/N? and then pacman
> >>> would add this result to pacman.conf
> >> You know, you're brilliant, man.
> >>
> >> Yes, this is clearly the place to do this, in my opinion.
> >
> > Hmmm http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/6510
>
> Okay, so you're brilliant, too. :)
>
> Seriously though, this gives a good way to handle the licensing
> without burdening the package organization. Good separation.

Except that...I thought the issue had nothing to do with package
installation. It has to do with distribution, no?

These are two separate issues for sure, and now we have managed to
make this much more complicated by bringing pacman into it.

-Dan