Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Quick Search: in
License crazy?
View unanswered posts
View posts from last 24 hours

 
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Portage & Programming
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
miket
Guru
Guru


Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 409
Location: Gainesville, FL, USA

PostPosted: Thu Mar 21, 2019 2:57 am    Post subject: License crazy? Reply with quote

Did I miss a memo? After upgrading to Portage 2.3.62 after a sync yesterday, Portage has become hyper-concerned about licenses. Sure, I expect to see license restrictions for things like Chrome binary plugins, but now it has taken to saying that packages are masked for not accepting licenses like Artistic and GPL-2.

Really??!!??

Here is just a snippet of the Portage output in the section "The following license changes are necessary to proceed:"
Code:
# required by dev-lang/ruby-2.4.5::gentoo[rdoc]
# required by dev-ruby/rubygems-2.7.9::gentoo[ruby_targets_ruby24]
# required by virtual/rubygems-14::gentoo[ruby_targets_ruby23]
# required by dev-ruby/racc-1.4.14::gentoo
=dev-ruby/rdoc-5.1.0 MIT Ruby


There were also many lines that did not get the full treatment with listed dependencies, lines like
Code:
- app-arch/cpio-2.12-r1::gentoo (masked by: GPL-3 license(s))


I added this string to my ACCEPT_LICENSES and saw most of this foolishness go away.
Code:
@FSF-APPROVED @FSF-APPROVED-OTHER @MISC-FREE @OSI-APPROVED


Yet still it hangs up on licenses like man-pages and freedist!

What on earth happened?

----

Edit to note that instead of adding the above string to ACCEPT_KEYWORDS, using simply @FREE stands in for all of those and also @MISC-FREE-DOCS, which takes care of man-pages.

Stuck by NeddySeagoon
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
fedeliallalinea
Bodhisattva
Bodhisattva


Joined: 08 Mar 2003
Posts: 21335
Location: here

PostPosted: Thu Mar 21, 2019 6:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't know what happend but in my system ACCEPT_LICENSE is correct set, as default, to "* -@EULA". This is set by profile normally (see /usr/portage/profiles/base/make.defaults).
Your profile is set correctly?
_________________
Questions are guaranteed in life; Answers aren't.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
miket
Guru
Guru


Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 409
Location: Gainesville, FL, USA

PostPosted: Thu Mar 21, 2019 6:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Indeed, the ACCEPT_LICENSE setting in /usr/portage/profiles/base/make.defaults is "* -@EULA"
There are no other places under /usr/portage/profiles/ which sets that variable.

I'm using a custom profile that has default/linux/amd64/17.0 as its parent.

This raises a curious question. I thought that portage would evaluate the configuration files in ascending order of precedence with the effect that later settings of variables would override any previous settings. In that way, anyone setting ACCEPT_LICENSE in /usr/portage/make.conf would override the setting from the profile. Is ACCEPT_LICENSE treated differently? I never before had to prefix the variable in this way:
Code:
ACCEPT_LICENSE="$ACCEPT_LICENSE google_chrome"


Note that in previous emerges with this same profile I did not have packages masked for licenses.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
fedeliallalinea
Bodhisattva
Bodhisattva


Joined: 08 Mar 2003
Posts: 21335
Location: here

PostPosted: Thu Mar 21, 2019 7:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

miket wrote:
This raises a curious question. I thought that portage would evaluate the configuration files in ascending order of precedence with the effect that later settings of variables would override any previous settings. In that way, anyone setting ACCEPT_LICENSE in /usr/portage/make.conf would override the setting from the profile. Is ACCEPT_LICENSE treated differently? I never before had to prefix the variable in this way:
Code:
ACCEPT_LICENSE="$ACCEPT_LICENSE google_chrome"

Sorry, I don't know, I've no experience on it
_________________
Questions are guaranteed in life; Answers aren't.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NeddySeagoon
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 05 Jul 2003
Posts: 42581
Location: 56N 3W

PostPosted: Thu Mar 21, 2019 7:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The default
Code:
ACCEPT_LICENSES
has been or is being changed.
See the Feb 2019 Council Meeting Summary
_________________
Regards,

NeddySeagoon

Computer users fall into two groups:-
those that do backups
those that have never had a hard drive fail.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tony0945
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 25 Jul 2006
Posts: 2884
Location: Illinois, USA

PostPosted: Thu Mar 21, 2019 9:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

miket wrote:
I thought that portage would evaluate the configuration files in ascending order of precedence with the effect that later settings of variables would override any previous settings. In that way, anyone setting ACCEPT_LICENSE in /usr/portage/make.conf would override the setting from the profile. Is ACCEPT_LICENSE treated differently? I never before had to prefix the variable in this way:
Code:
ACCEPT_LICENSE="$ACCEPT_LICENSE google_chrome"

That form appends google_chrome to the previous licenses. It's shell (or bash) syntax.
You can use this to make your use flags read neater too and get around the nano line length limitation.
Code:

#first as policy no RedHat stuff
USE="-acl -perl -caps -ldap -nls -libav -mysql -orc \
     -gnome -gnome-keyring -policykit -consolekit -udev -dbus -jack -pulseaudio  \
     -udev -udisks -upower -networkmanager"
#now remove other useless stuff
USE="$USE -accessability -bluetooth -guile -qt4 -qt5 -ipv6 -tcl -tk -vala "
#now add stuff I want
USE="$USE alsa dvb dvd dvdr ffmpeg v4l ftp jpeg gbm \
     gstreamer python scanner sndfile samba sqlite suid tahoma truetype xpm \
     xv multislot split-usr gtk3  X"

I think my first USE line wiped out the profile USE.

Here is my ACCEPT_LICENSES, warning! It's probably a decade old.
Code:

ACCEPT_LICENSE="* AdobeFlash-11.1"


Fixed the quote -- NeddySeagoon
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NeddySeagoon
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 05 Jul 2003
Posts: 42581
Location: 56N 3W

PostPosted: Thu Mar 21, 2019 9:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tony0945,

The line continuation marks are no longer required.

If you want to wipe out you profile USE put USE="-* ..." in make.conf.
_________________
Regards,

NeddySeagoon

Computer users fall into two groups:-
those that do backups
those that have never had a hard drive fail.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Hu
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 06 Mar 2007
Posts: 13498

PostPosted: Fri Mar 22, 2019 1:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tony0945 wrote:
Code:
USE="$USE -accessability -bluetooth -guile -qt4 -qt5 -ipv6 -tcl -tk -vala "
Minor point: you misspelled accessibility, but the in-tree uses spell it correctly, so your attempt to disable it is ignored.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tony0945
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 25 Jul 2006
Posts: 2884
Location: Illinois, USA

PostPosted: Fri Mar 22, 2019 3:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Code:
MSI portage # equery h accessibility
 * Searching for USE flag accessibility ...
[IP-] [  ] dev-qt/qtgui-5.12.1-r1:5/5.12
[IP-] [  ] x11-themes/gtk-engines-2.20.2-r2:2
MSI portage # equery h accessability
 * Searching for USE flag accessability  ...
MSI portage #

Thank you, Hu. Absolutely correct as always. Blame it on old eyes. I'm going for cataract surgery next month.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tony0945
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 25 Jul 2006
Posts: 2884
Location: Illinois, USA

PostPosted: Fri Mar 22, 2019 3:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

NeddySeagoon wrote:
Tony0945,

The line continuation marks are no longer required.

If you want to wipe out you profile USE put USE="-* ..." in make.conf.

Good to know. Not planning to wipe out the profile, but thought maybe I did.
Why no longer required? A change in bash?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NTU
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 17 Jul 2015
Posts: 163

PostPosted: Fri Mar 22, 2019 3:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Heh, when I first saw the subject title I thought this was about how if you write an ebuild, no matter how big, no matter how many thousand lines, it's copyright under Gentoo.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ant P.
Watchman
Watchman


Joined: 18 Apr 2009
Posts: 5592

PostPosted: Fri Mar 22, 2019 4:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

NTU wrote:
Heh, when I first saw the subject title I thought this was about how if you write an ebuild, no matter how big, no matter how many thousand lines, it's copyright under Gentoo.

At least the code enforcing that craziness is now fixed but yeah, that rule was in place for far too long.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tony0945
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 25 Jul 2006
Posts: 2884
Location: Illinois, USA

PostPosted: Fri Mar 22, 2019 4:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ant P. wrote:
NTU wrote:
Heh, when I first saw the subject title I thought this was about how if you write an ebuild, no matter how big, no matter how many thousand lines, it's copyright under Gentoo.

At least the code enforcing that craziness is now fixed but yeah, that rule was in place for far too long.


What is the difference between Copyright Gentoo Foundation and Copyright Gentoo Authors ?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ant P.
Watchman
Watchman


Joined: 18 Apr 2009
Posts: 5592

PostPosted: Fri Mar 22, 2019 7:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tony0945 wrote:
Ant P. wrote:
NTU wrote:
Heh, when I first saw the subject title I thought this was about how if you write an ebuild, no matter how big, no matter how many thousand lines, it's copyright under Gentoo.

At least the code enforcing that craziness is now fixed but yeah, that rule was in place for far too long.


What is the difference between Copyright Gentoo Foundation and Copyright Gentoo Authors ?

The foundation is half a dozen people. Gentoo Authors on the other hand is a catch-all referring to whoever actually wrote the ebuild and holds the copyright. There's no CLAs here, so the previous statement was legally null and void at best; I'd say we've got lucky that nobody sufficiently evil and petty has showed up thus far to drag Gentoo to court over it.

Also note that repoman's new rule allows actual names on the copyright line, not just the string “Gentoo Authors”. It's just there as a fallback.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tony0945
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 25 Jul 2006
Posts: 2884
Location: Illinois, USA

PostPosted: Fri Mar 22, 2019 4:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ant P. wrote:
Also note that repoman's new rule allows actual names on the copyright line, not just the string “Gentoo Authors”. It's just there as a fallback.

So if I write one from scratch, I can put my name on it?
I usually don't worry about these things but recently Matt Tobin of the palemoon team used legal threats to coerce Feodor2 (google github MyPal) to stop issuing patches against his MPL code and to instead post the whole patched code. When someone unknown posts patches it's much easier to inspect the patches rather than wade through a few gigabytes of code to find changes.
So I got concerned that if I start publishing ebuilds the Foundation might be able to sue me for copyright violation. This is a major reason why I don't have a github site for the old Roy Marples versions of OpenRC and other packages that have disappeared over the years.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
krinn
Watchman
Watchman


Joined: 02 May 2003
Posts: 6968

PostPosted: Fri Mar 22, 2019 5:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

If you create an ebuild: you can put your name in it, it's your creation and you're the author.
If you publish old ebuild, it depends on the license set in them, but to my knowledge, all ebuilds i know are under GPLv2, which mean, publish them as you wish, change them as you wish (but if you publish the product with these changes, you must provide source of it ; which for ebuilds mean nothing as ebuilds are their own source)
If you modify an existing ebuild, you could add also your name in it, but you cannot remove other authors copyright.

For the "gentoo authors" change, it mean nothing legally i think (but i'm not a lawyer), because the only legal gentoo entity to attack is the Foundation anyway.
I think they use it rather than "unknown authors" which would had been better imo ; i'm not quiet sure why they have done that, but i'm certain they have fail if they think it was good.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NeddySeagoon
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 05 Jul 2003
Posts: 42581
Location: 56N 3W

PostPosted: Fri Mar 22, 2019 6:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tony0945,

Its unlikely ebuilds individually can be copyrighted. You would be hard pressed to show that it was an original work and if you use any eclasses at all you may find that the ebuild is small in comparison to the ebuild.

Almost all or ever all ebuilds can be shown to be derivatives of /usr/portage/skel.ebuild and that goes for new ebuilds too.
The Gentoo Authors includes everyone who ever contributed.

The entire repo on the other hand, that includes all the eclasses, is probably copyrightable.

I'm saying 'unlikely' and 'probably' as these concepts have not been determined in any court that I'm aware of.
_________________
Regards,

NeddySeagoon

Computer users fall into two groups:-
those that do backups
those that have never had a hard drive fail.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Portage & Programming All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum