As far as I can understand the meaning of this license. I think, the LGPL-2.1-linking-exception should be in the FREE licenses group. http://caml.inria.fr/pub/old_caml_site/ocaml/LICENSE.html Note: This license is used by many software located in dev-ml.
This is somewhat unsystematic, on the one hand we have several GPL-*-with-*exception* which are complete licenses by themselves. On the other hand, there are LGPL-2.1-linking-exception and LGPL-2.1-FPC which contain only the exception clause. Do we want such partial licenses, or should we create a LGPL-2.1-with-linking-exception instead? (Most packages in dev-ml seem to use it in that sense already, i.e. they just have LICENSE="LGPL-2.1-linking-exception" and don't add the LGPL-2.1 itself.)
I think, create a LGPL-2.1-with-linking-exception is a good idea. Because, I don't really see the purpose of a partial license.
Created (and added to @GPL-COMPATIBLE group): LGPL-2.1-with-linking-exception LGPL-3-with-linking-exception Removed: LGPL-2.1-linking-exception LGPL-2.1-FPC All affected ebuilds (in main tree) updated.
I don't know why, but I'm still have this, after sync twice: !!! The following installed packages are masked: - dev-ml/ocamlmod-0.0.3::gentoo (masked by: LGPL-2.1-linking-exception license(s)) A copy of the 'LGPL-2.1-linking-exception' license is located at 'None'. - dev-ml/oasis-0.3.0::gentoo (masked by: LGPL-2.1-linking-exception license(s)) - dev-ml/ocamlify-0.0.1::gentoo (masked by: LGPL-2.1-linking-exception license(s)) For more information, see the MASKED PACKAGES section in the emerge man page or refer to the Gentoo Handbook. But I look into the ebuild and the license is LGPL-2.1-with-linking-exception. So, some packages have no problems but these have one.
This is an artefact caused by the way Portage handles installed packages: The license of the package will be looked in the VDB (/var/db/pkg/), not in the ebuild's metadata. As a workaround, reinstall the affected packages and you should be fine.
Thanks
