In code listing 4.3, there is the following eample: ACCEPT_LICENSE="@GPL-COMPATIBLE @OSI-APPROVED @EULA atheros-hal BitstreamVera" This is a bad example for two reasons: - ACCEPT_LICENSE is a cumulative variable, so it should start with "-*" to clear the list. - The combination of license groups make no sense. Why would anyone want to accept @EULA together with @GPL-COMPATIBLE, but exclude the rest? I suggest: - Mention that users need to include "-*" to clear the default. - Change the example to something that could be used in practice, like: ACCEPT_LICENSE="-* @FREE-SOFTWARE @FREE-DOCUMENTS atheros-hal BitstreamVera"
Thanks for the suggestion; I've updated the document accordingly. I also switched from "[packages] will be installed" to "[packages] will be installable", considering that the license itself doesn't mean the packages are automatically installed ;-) Updated in CVS, will show up online in an hour or so.
Hm, now the important example ACCEPT_LICENSES="-* @FREE" (previously code listing 4.4) is gone. Is this intentional? Reopening.
That is merged in the example above it: """ License groups defined in ACCEPT_LICENSE are prefixed with an @ sign. Here's an example of a system that globally permits the free software (and documentation) license group, as well as a few other individual licenses: Code Listing 4.3: ACCEPT_LICENSE in /etc/portage/make.conf ACCEPT_LICENSE="-* @FREE atheros-hal BitstreamVera" In this case, "free" is mostly defined by the FSF and OSI. Any package whose license does not meet these requirements will not be installable on your system. """ The examples were duplicates - one was nothing more than the expanded @FREE, so I just merged them. Ok for you to close it back? Or would you want it to be more prevalent?
I'm unhappy about the @FREE example being merged with the preceding one. We have two recommended configurations, namely "* -@EULA" and "-* @FREE" which are mentioned in make.conf.example. I believe that it would be useful for users if they could find both examples explicitly listed in the handbook.
Ok, I can follow that. Would the next be alright? """ License groups defined in ACCEPT_LICENSE are prefixed with an @ sign. A commonly requested setting is to only allow the installation of free software and documentation. To accomplish this, we can remove all currently accepted licenses (using -*) and then only allow the licenses in the FREE group as follows: Code Listing 4.3: Only allowing free software and documentation licenses in /etc/portage/make.conf ACCEPT_LICENSE="-* @FREE" In this case, "free" is mostly defined by the FSF and OSI. Any package whose license does not meet these requirements will not be installable on your system. """
Looks good to me.
Ok, committed.
