Currently, GLEP 23 refers to a @NON-MUST-HAVE-READ license group that was never implemented. Instead, in portage-2.1.7.x we are using ACCEPT_LICENSE="* -@EULA" which is essentially equivalent to what @NON-MUST-HAVE-READ was supposed to represent. See discussion here: http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_d5c1e7285399ebc27a74bdd02cb4d037.xml
It would be trivial to define "NON-MUST-HAVE-READ * -@EULA" in license_groups. However, I'm not fond of the -@EULA negative list. It would be much better to have a positive list of licenses that have actually been checked.
Well, other thing, and the ticket left off... incrementals used here aren't consistent w/ normal incrementals (the real incompatibility w/ g23). Specifically, think through USE flags and other bits- you can do '-*', but you sure as hell can't do '*'; yet make.globals is using exactly that for ACCEPT_LICENSE. As I mentioned in #-dev, pkgcore now supports this, and paludis doesn't support ACCEPT_LICENSE from portage configuration so right now it's not hurting anything, but the spec is inconsistant w/ the incrementals in use here and needs updating or reverting of the current '*' usage.
(In reply to comment #1) > However, I'm not fond of the -@EULA negative list. It would be much better to > have a positive list of licenses that have actually been checked. The idea behind "* -@EULA" is that it's supposed to be essentially equivalent to @NON-MUST-HAVE-READ except that you only have to explicitly define the smaller @EULA set. The @NON-MUST-HAVE-READ set would contain almost all licenses and therefore might be a little more annoying to maintain than the smaller @EULA set.
Is this still an issue, or can this bug be closed? A "status update" section was added to the GLEP some time ago: "Portage now handles ACCEPT_LICENSE and license groups, with NON-MUST HAVE-READ's role handled by @EULA." https://wiki.gentoo.org/index.php?title=GLEP%3A23&type=revision&diff=99051&oldid=99047
Looks good. Thanks!