| Summary: | sys-block/tw_cli: license copying likely unnecessary | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Gentoo Linux | Reporter: | Michał Górny <mgorny> |
| Component: | Current packages | Assignee: | Robin Johnson <robbat2> |
| Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | ||
| Severity: | normal | CC: | esigra, licenses, neurogeek, tsmksubc |
| Priority: | Normal | ||
| Version: | unspecified | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- | |
| Bug Depends on: | |||
| Bug Blocks: | 373349 | ||
(In reply to Michał Górny from comment #0) > ulm sez this is probably unnecessary Disclaimer: IANAL, TINLA. In the extended discussions with upstream relating to bug 60690, it was the most reliable means of ensuring that the license was always installed even after PORTDIR was removed. Notably it was sufficient to make upstream's lawyers happy (specifically the 3ware lawyers around the time of them being acquired by LSI). I don't care where it comes from, BUT it's not include in the upstream distfiles. Two options: - keep using $PORTDIR - put a copy in $DISTDIR (In reply to Robin Johnson from comment #2) > Two options: > - keep using $PORTDIR > - put a copy in $DISTDIR I suggest to put this on hold until we have a general plan for these variables. It may well be that EAPI 7 will introduce a LICENSEDIR variable, and then there would be an obvious upgrade path. Copy is now in $DISTDIR |
# to comply with license requirement 3.1.b insinto /opt/tw_cli newins ${PORTDIR}/licenses/${LICENSE} LICENSE ulm sez this is probably unnecessary, and killing it would get rid of one PORTDIR use. <ulm> mgorny: that would be LSI-tw_cli? where does it actually say that the license needs to be installed? <ulm> the 3.1.(b) mentioned in the ebuild only says "Licensee shall reproduce all copyright notices and other proprietary markings or legends contained within or on the LSI Binary Code and related Explanatory Materials on any copies it makes" <ulm> and I fail to see why this would require installing the license <ulm> and what does the "it" refer to? to the LSI Binary Code? <ulm> one of the worst wordings I've ever seen <mgorny> don't ask me ;-) <mgorny> should i file a bug with 'wtf'? <ulm> well, we deliver the license to the user <ulm> and the clause says that it must be "contained on any copies" <ulm> not "within"