I would like to accept the inner-net license in cases only where clause 0 is not exercised ("0. If you receive a version of the software that is specifically labelled as not being for redistribution (check the version message and/or README), you are not permitted to redistribute that version of the software in any way or form."). Is it possible to split this license into two entries, one where clause 0 is inactive, and one where it is?
Em, USE=bindist might help?
To clarify, I want to build non-redistributable (due to patents or whatever) binaries, but only with code that I can redistribute freely.
@luke: that makes sense. However, we should check if there are any packages that have clause 0 exercised and use that license. So we may not need the non-free variant of it at all. Can you do that? @jer: BINDIST doesn't help here. We have license groups for "free" (as in freedom) licenses and we can't conditionally add a license to a license group.
`eix -L inner-net --only-names` says only sys-libs/glibc is using this license, and I would expect the LGPL-2.1+ to prohibit exercise of clause 0.
So we're probably fine if we just add a note to the inner-net license file that this should only be used for apps that don't pull clause 0 and we're fine, right? I'll check this with ulm (who's currently the most active person in the license team) and commit if he agrees.
Sounds good to me.
(In reply to comment #4) > `eix -L inner-net --only-names` says only sys-libs/glibc is using this > license, and I would expect the LGPL-2.1+ to prohibit exercise of clause 0. sys-libs/uclibc is using it too, for libc/inet/getaddrinfo.c. (In reply to comment #5) > So we're probably fine if we just add a note to the inner-net license file > that this should only be used for apps that don't pull clause 0 and we're > fine, right? I'll check this with ulm (who's currently the most active > person in the license team) and commit if he agrees. Please go ahead. (Seems that we don't have a standard for adding such notes yet. Could "BSD-with-attribution" used as an example, or should we be more explicit and introduce it with "Gentoo license note" instead of "Note"?)
Doesn't look like toolchain is needed here.
--- inner-net 22 Dec 2012 09:13:46 -0000 1.1 +++ inner-net 24 Feb 2013 14:09:38 -0000 1.2 @@ -32,3 +32,9 @@ SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. If these license terms cause you a real problem, contact the author. + +--- + +Gentoo license note: In order to qualify as a free software license, +the "inner-net" license label must only be used for packages where +clause 0 is not exercised.
