Masked by: * license(s) [SOLVED]

[ISHAIM]

Hello,

During the end of any successful portage operation, I get the following messages about licenses:

Code: Select all

!!! The following installed packages are masked:
- dev-java/sun-jdk-1.6.0.15 (masked by: dlj-1.1 license(s))
A copy of the 'dlj-1.1' license is located at '/usr/portage/licenses/dlj-1.1'.

- dev-java/blackdown-jdk-1.4.2.03-r15 (masked by: sun-bcla-java-vm license(s))
A copy of the 'sun-bcla-java-vm' license is located at '/usr/portage/licenses/sun-bcla-java-vm'.

- app-emulation/virtualbox-ose-additions-3.0.6 (masked by: PUEL license(s))
A copy of the 'PUEL' license is located at '/usr/portage/licenses/PUEL'.

For more information, see the MASKED PACKAGES section in the emerge
man page or refer to the Gentoo Handbook.

I'm unsure what to do as I'd like to get rid of the error message.

Thanks.

[Shining Arcanine]

You can fix that by adding ACCEPT_LICENSE="*" or ACCEPT_LICENSE="dlj-1.1" if you do not want to automatically accept all licenses to your make.conf file.

[NeddySeagoon]

ISHAIM,

Gentoo now allows you to manage your system using software licences.
Your dev-java/sun-jdk-1.6.0.15 was installed before this feature was in portage.

make.conf has a new variable ACCEPT_LICENSE which allows you to control which licences you will accept globally.
There is also a /etc/portage/package.license file which gives you per package control.

See man make.conf and man portage.

What you need to do depends on how you want to manage licences.

[ISHAIM]

Solved. Thank you very much.

[Gentree]

You can fix that by adding ACCEPT_LICENSE="*" or ACCEPT_LICENSE="dlj-1.1" if you do not want to automatically accept all licenses to your make.conf file.

Since this has now gone sticky I think the following should be pointed out.

Clearly ACCEPT_LICENSE="*" is a pretty dumb thing to do since it means not only have you no intention of reading any license that you are legally agreeing to by installing the software, but you will not even be aware which packages have restrictive licenses.

Licenses are not always as banal as you may imagine. I've yet to find anyone that is aware that they gave google permission to store and analyse the entire contents of all their emails when they signed up for Gmail. Though they usually seem rather shocked when I tell them.

Google knows all your personal social network and what interests you have in common. Cool. ACCEPT_LICENSE="*"

[dambacher]

And where can I see wich licenses are accepted by default?

Maybe it would be handier if someone creates an eselect plugin for this?
Something like

Code: Select all

eselect license list
eselect license accept dlj
eselect license ask dlj

the latter one shows the given license with less or something and then asks "Do you accept (Yes/No)"


/dambacher

[dambacher]

And where can I see wich licenses are accepted by default?

/etc/make.globals sais

Code: Select all

ACCEPT_LICENSE="* -@EULA"

What this means, you can fiund it in /usr/portage/profiles/license_groups wich is a rather long list.

/dambacher

[jcc3]

You can fix that by adding ACCEPT_LICENSE="*" or ACCEPT_LICENSE="dlj-1.1" if you do not want to automatically accept all licenses to your make.conf file.

Since this has now gone sticky I think the following should be pointed out.

Clearly ACCEPT_LICENSE="*" is a pretty dumb thing to do since it means not only have you no intention of reading any license that you are legally agreeing to by installing the software, but you will not even be aware which packages have restrictive licenses.

Licenses are not always as banal as you may imagine. I've yet to find anyone that is aware that they gave google permission to store and analyse the entire contents of all their emails when they signed up for Gmail. Though they usually seem rather shocked when I tell them.

Google knows all your personal social network and what interests you have in common. Cool. ACCEPT_LICENSE="*"

What was the status quo? No explicit check. In your view, does this make anyone who emerged anything in the past, without proactively researching each individual port, "clearly pretty dumb"?

[AllenJB]

See also http://en.gentoo-wiki.com/wiki/Licenses

[Sadako]

You can fix that by adding ACCEPT_LICENSE="*" or ACCEPT_LICENSE="dlj-1.1" if you do not want to automatically accept all licenses to your make.conf file.

Since this has now gone sticky I think the following should be pointed out.

Clearly ACCEPT_LICENSE="*" is a pretty dumb thing to do since it means not only have you no intention of reading any license that you are legally agreeing to by installing the software, but you will not even be aware which packages have restrictive licenses.

Licenses are not always as banal as you may imagine. I've yet to find anyone that is aware that they gave google permission to store and analyse the entire contents of all their emails when they signed up for Gmail. Though they usually seem rather shocked when I tell them.

Google knows all your personal social network and what interests you have in common. Cool. ACCEPT_LICENSE="*"

While I agree with you on the google thing (and refuse to use gmail, or anything ther than their search engine because of this kind of crap), this only accepting completely free licenses by default is a pain in the ass.

It's fantastic that you can select which licenses to accept now, but I think it should have remained optional with the default to accept all, what we have now is all "non-free" packages essentially being masked.

While it's extemely simple to unmask them, at least for anyone with some experience with gentoo, it's going to be a bit of a pain for newcomers, who IMO are much more likely to try to install "non-free" licensed software in the first place...

[pandora]

You can fix that by adding ACCEPT_LICENSE="*" or ACCEPT_LICENSE="dlj-1.1" if you do not want to automatically accept all licenses to your make.conf file.

Since this has now gone sticky I think the following should be pointed out.

Clearly ACCEPT_LICENSE="*" is a pretty dumb thing to do since it means not only have you no intention of reading any license that you are legally agreeing to by installing the software

Licenses of this sort are not legally binding, although naturally copyright continues to apply.

[NeddySeagoon]

pandora,

Whats legally binding varies from jursidiction to jursidiction.

[ShadowCat8]

Well, remember what one of the Open-Source Movement's founding fathers had once said:

"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."

-- Richard Stallman, Founder of the GNU Project and the FSF

[honeymak]

portage/package.license is NOT working after update portage

[wlchase]

I concur, if it matters.

Bill

EDIT: And now, 2.6.31-r10 sources & portage 2.1.7.17, it works again!

B

[dirkfanick]

For "fun":

Google knows all your personal social network and what interests you have in common. Cool. ACCEPT_LICENSE="*"

And google also knows anyone who denies this.

[F1r31c3r]

Come on people, we are all hackers, if you are using Gentoo then you are a Hacker like it or not.

You had to mildly hack the OS to get it installed or at least some part of it. Accept license wow "*" YES you clearly have not read it so is it really legaly binding lol.

Who gives a crap frankly, i mean what could possible terms and conditions do to affect your everyday life? What kind of spying could they possibly do that is made legal by terms and conditions, License or any other part of it for that matter.

If you spot an offending code then remove it, then crack the source of that code, release the truth and destroy the person who made it. Sounds like fun to me, No stupid terms and condition, license agreement will make any difference to all this for the end user.

Its all used in a big corporate company playing field and has nothing to do with ordinary people. Most accept the terms of Apple and M$ now that is seriously messed up. Still dont stop you hacking the crap out of this binary software junk. iTunes deserves to be hacked the crap out of it. What do they expect, restrict the user and the user will break out, JailBreaker baby, lets get it on.

So just run riot, who cares, not me. Mr Law firm cares but not the people so .!.. to them and lets enjoy hacking more software.

We need a feature to search and find binary blobs in code simply, that is a good idea. What use is a program if we dont use it lol. That said we can easy hack it and build an alternative simple enough, ish'ish :p If you are going to tell me that all this is illegal well, what planet you on. Legislation saves lives, Law is just something that has always existed, created by mother nature so to tell me that i can not use my computer as i wish due to some license is stupid to say the least.

Who is pissed yet with my "Does this face look bothered"

When these companies start fully respecting people and their freedom then i will see the need to respect there's, until then they can kiss my tee-hiny. accepting a license means nothing. The built in DRM on my ISP's router using GNU code is stopping me from flashing in my own firmware and i am supposed to take their terms conditions, license seriously. Hell no, hack away people, enjoy.

[mv]

When these companies start fully respecting people and their freedom

It is your choice if you decide to use software which is not under a free license. However, wouldn't it be better to not use that software and use a free alternative instead if it exists?
This is exactly what you achieve by not using ACCEPT_LICENSE="*": For libraries e.g. which have alternative free implementations, portage will install those instead.
For those for which portage did not find a free alternative, you can still accept the license per package - even if you do not want to read it.
Of course, as long as you only install such a thing on your own machine it probably plays no role. However, it plays e.g. a role if you write software which uses a library: In this case you would probably like to use the free library instead of the unfree one. Which is hard to do if you do not know which is which...

[F1r31c3r]

It is your choice if you decide to use software which is not under a free license.

I would like the above statement to be 100% viable, Adobe-Flash need i say more. I like. watching youtube videos and for some reason no matter what i do i can not get GNUflash stuff to work properly. its like every video runs differently.

However, it plays e.g. a role if you write software which uses a library: In this case you would probably like to use the free library instead of the unfree one. Which is hard to do if you do not know which is which...

That is so very true. if our normal brains that have been subject to loud music, alcohol, polution and toxins of all kinds could actually keep a track of 60000+ packages, libraries and more then i guess this would not be a problem. Dam what a mess.

[cord]

Proper value is

Code: Select all

ACCEPT_LICENSE="-* @FREE"

[F1r31c3r]

Proper value is

Code: Select all

ACCEPT_LICENSE="-* @FREE"

Thank you for posting that. I am using that now and any other licences that crop up i put into /etc/portage/package.licences manually as and when i need them or agree.

Be nice if it was all @FREE but even the gentoo-sources don't have the @FREE licence to it. they now have kernel licence separate.

[NeddySeagoon]

F1r31c3r,

I think USE=deblob makes the kernel @free

[F1r31c3r]

F1r31c3r,

I think USE=deblob makes the kernel @free

I have that use flag enabled and portage still asked me to put licence in the package.licences

[cord]

I have that use flag enabled and portage still asked me to put licence in the package.licences

Unconfirmed.

Code: Select all

USE="deblob" emerge -av hardened-sources

satisfies @FREE

F1r31c3r, what packages you need which not satisfy @FREE?

[kumari]

Hey,

How did you solve this problem?