The "no-source-code" license label is redundant if the license itself is not in the @FREE license group. See the tracker bug 615456 for a longer explanation.
I also have doubts if Skype-TOS covers all components of the package.
OK, so removing 'no-source-code' from license is obvious.
As for he second part of your comment. Should I add licenses for bundled libnode (BSD-2) and FFmpeg (LGPL-2.1? GPL-2?) ?
(In reply to Karol Grudziński from comment #1)
> Should I add licenses for bundled libnode (BSD-2) and FFmpeg
> (LGPL-2.1? GPL-2?) ?
This should be LGPL (but I haven't checked), because a proprietary binary linked against GPL components would not be distributable.
I did some research and it looks that libffmpeg.so comes from Chromium which is used by Electron which was used to make new Skype. There is a long list of apps that were also made in Electron (Slack, Atom, VSC etc.).
I installed this package because skype is being discontinued in portage.
My surprise is i could install it without accepting any licence what is totally wrong.
If you go here: https://www.skype.com/en/download-skype/skype-for-computer/
you can read:
and a link to this EULA:
Please Update the EULA of skypeforlinux because is not open/free software.
Thank you for your work! :)
Only for aclaration... It seems skypeforlinux beta dont use SkypeTOS eula anymore. So somebody has to update the EULA of skypeforlinux to the new one.
I have to file a new bug or i can leave in this one?
because is not about "no-source-code" the problem is about SkypeTOS is not used anymore and there are a new EULA called Microsoft Services Agreement.
I am not sure if i am right but the point is... I could install skypeforlinux without putting anything inside /etc/portage/package.license
Thank you again :)
(In reply to mercuriete from comment #5)
> because is not about "no-source-code" the problem is about SkypeTOS is not
> used anymore and there are a new EULA called Microsoft Services Agreement.
These seem to be the terms for using their facilities. What we need in LICENSE are the terms that regulate distribution of the program, though. Copyright is about distributing, not about using a program.
> I am not sure if i am right but the point is... I could install
> skypeforlinux without putting anything inside /etc/portage/package.license
What is your ACCEPT_LICENSE? If you set it to "@FREE" (which isn't the Portage default, unfortunately) then you should get only free software.
Thank you for your quick response.
# required by chrome-binary-plugins (argument)
# required by skype (argument)
# required by adobe-flash (argument)
emerge --info|grep LICENSE
I don't completely understand all the license stuff in gentoo.
If is the right behaviour sorry for the noise in this issue.
I was thinking that I had to accept license in the same way that I had to do with net-im/skype.
Thank you very much for your work :)
The bug has been referenced in the following commit(s):
Author: Karol Grudziński <email@example.com>
AuthorDate: 2017-11-02 16:24:42 +0000
Commit: Agostino Sarubbo <firstname.lastname@example.org>
CommitDate: 2017-11-27 18:28:56 +0000
net-im/skypeforlinux: version bump
- Remove ebuilds for obsolete versions
- Bump to 188.8.131.52 with changes in ebuild:
- updated the list of dependencies
- updated list of licenses
- simplified the installation
- other QA fixes
Package-Manager: Portage-2.3.13, Repoman-2.3.4
net-im/skypeforlinux/Manifest | 3 +-
net-im/skypeforlinux/skypeforlinux-184.108.40.206.ebuild | 108 ---------------------
....5.0.1.ebuild => skypeforlinux-220.127.116.11.ebuild} | 50 +++++-----
3 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 136 deletions(-)}
new maintainer here, from the looks of things, this is now taken care of.