[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Gentoo GNU/Linux and non-free packages

From: Tassilo Horn
Subject: Re: Gentoo GNU/Linux and non-free packages
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2010 12:56:13 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1.91 (gnu/linux)

Marek Aaron Sapota <address@hidden> writes:

Hi Marek,

>> > - packages have non-free dependences, sometimes programs compile
>> > fine without them, but they are pulled in anyway
>> What do you mean with "pulled in".  I tried to install a package that
>> has a non-free dependency, and portage 2.2 told me it cannot install
>> it, because this dependency is masked by my license restriction.
> I mean that I can not install a package only because it has a non-free
> dependency even if it works fine without it - for example X.Org and
> Wine pull in non-free fonts.

I've just checked xorg-x11, and it has only hard dependencies to fonts
licensed under the MIT license or public domain.  I guess, I've set some
use flag, which enables this additional dependency.

Use "equery depends <non-free font>" to check, what packages tries to
pull it in, and what use flag is responsible.

>> > - some free "alternatives" are only in additional repositories
>> Usually, this occurs if a package simply doesn't work for most users,
>> or no maintainer has been found yet.
> Icedtea is in an overlay even if it works perfectly.

I use icedtea6-bin from the main gentoo portage tree.  Additionally,
portage prefers it over sun-jdk.  It's possible, that there's a source
distribution of icedtea in some repository, but the binary is there in
the main tree.

>> This applies to many modular X11 packages, but work is in progress to
>> fix that.  And of course, this will never make a non-free package
>> installable if you've set your ACCEPT_LICENSE to match only free
>> licenses.  It will prevent installing those programs although they
>> might be free.  The other way round would be a showstopper, but this
>> way it's only a little inconvenience.
> Indeed - it makes it inconvenient to use only Free Software with
> Gentoo.

I agree, but that will get better.

> To be a Free Distribution Gentoo would have to show commitment to Free
> Software and they clearly don't.

The social contract does:

,----[ http://www.gentoo.org/main/en/contract.xml ]
| We will release our contributions to Gentoo as free software, metadata
| or documentation, under the GNU General Public License version 2 (or
| later, at our discretion) or the Creative Commons - Attribution /
| Share Alike version 2 (or later, at our discretion).  Any external
| contributions to Gentoo (in the form of freely-distributable sources,
| binaries, metadata or documentation) may be incorporated into Gentoo
| provided that we are legally entitled to do so.  However, Gentoo will
| never /depend/ upon a piece of software or metadata unless it conforms
| to the GNU General Public License, the GNU Lesser General Public
| License, the Creative Commons - Attribution/Share Alike or some other
| license approved by the Open Source Initiative (OSI).
| Note: We are considering extending the above clause to require that
| all core Gentoo components must conform to a license approved by the
| OSI *and* Free Software Foundation (FSF).


[Sorry for the resent, Marek!]

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]