app-emulation/virtualbox-ose-additions license is PUEL and app-emulation/virtualbox-guest-additions license is GPL-2 shouldn't they be the other way? If licenses are good then virtualbox-ose should depend on app-emulation/virtualbox-guest-additions to avoid license incompatibility problems. Reproducible: Always
(In reply to comment #0) > app-emulation/virtualbox-ose-additions license is PUEL and > app-emulation/virtualbox-guest-additions license is GPL-2 > > shouldn't they be the other way? If licenses are good then virtualbox-ose > should depend on app-emulation/virtualbox-guest-additions to avoid license > incompatibility problems. > > Reproducible: Always > Hi, well this topic was discussed many times app-emulation/virtualbox-ose-additions -- the *entire* package for istance includes, binary guest additions for various operating systems (including windows), due the nature of the windows additions for sun/innotek is not possible to license some code under the GPL so it falls under the the PUEL licensing. Furthermore this package is totally optional (but the use is suggested by upstream) app-emulation/virtualbox-guest-additions -- this package provide linux guest additions (in this case only for gentoo linux), this additions are totally open sourced and obviously only used inside a gentoo-linux Guest and installed only inside a guest using portage. So there is no way to change this atm, due the licensing and the nature of this two packages.
So what is the difference in functionality of this two packages? Why can't virtualbox-ose use GPLed package? It's hard to guess reading only portage descriptions. Also can't the PUEL version be stripped of proprietary elements? Windows additions seem unnecessary on GNU+Linux system.
(In reply to comment #2) > So what is the difference in functionality of this two packages? As said before app-emulation/virtualbox-ose-additions: provides *binary* additions for various Guest Systems (Windows, Solaris, Linux Generic, Os/2), this package reflects the contents of the "VBoxGuestAdditions-${PV}.iso", you will need this package to provide guest additions to these guest hosts "Linux Generic" for istance can be Ubuntu, Fedora, etc. app-emulation/virtualbox-guest-additions: provides Guest Additions *only* for Gentoo Gnu/Linux Guest Systems, this ebuild uses the sources shipped with the virtualbox-ose tarball to build the additions for Gentoo Gnu/Linux Guests, this ebuild was created expressively for Gentoo Gnu/Linux and gives the ability to use/install guest additions using portage. > Why can't > virtualbox-ose use GPLed package? It's hard to guess reading only portage > descriptions. Because not all the virtualbox users are going to use Gentoo/Linux guests, and second because you need to install guest additions *inside the guest system* so there is not reason to depend on app-emulation/virtualbox-guest-additions for an host system. [ Also please note that the meaning of VirtualBox guest additions in explained on VirtualBox official manual [1] (capther 4) ] > Also can't the PUEL version be stripped of proprietary elements? No, it doesn't due the PUEL license. > Windows additions seem unnecessary on GNU+Linux system. Really i don't think they are unnecessary, what if you use for example a Solaris or Windows Guest system with virtualbox? [1] http://download.virtualbox.org/virtualbox/2.1.2/UserManual.pdf
(In reply to comment #3) > > Also can't the PUEL version be stripped of proprietary elements? > No, it doesn't due the PUEL license. If parts are GPL then I don't think that they can be bound to a proprietary licensed package. Anyway I think that descriptions of this packages should be changed. Something like: app-emulation/virtualbox-ose-additions - CD image with guest additions for VirtualBox would be clearer.
+ 08 Jun 2010; Lars Wendler <polynomial-c@gentoo.org> + virtualbox-ose-additions-3.0.12.ebuild, + virtualbox-ose-additions-3.1.8.ebuild, + virtualbox-ose-additions-3.2.2.ebuild, + virtualbox-ose-additions-3.2.4.ebuild: + Improved package description a bit. This was suggested by Marek Aaron + Sapota (bug #258444). +
