Re: Gentoo GNU/Linux and non-free packages

[Tassilo Horn]

Marek Aaron Sapota <address@hidden> writes:

Hi Marek,

> It is possible to use only Free Software with Gentoo but it isn't that
> easy:
> - 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.

> - 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.

> - predefined license groups (for example FSF approved) are not
>   complete

Indeed, currently GPL-1 and LGPL-2 are missing.  But that will surely be
fixed as soon as the overall mechanics are stable.

> - some packages have wrong licenses (usually license is named after the
>   package even if it really is for example GPL)

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.

> Gentoo isn't even close to being a Free Distribution in FSF sense, I
> have no idea why some people treat it as such.

Hm, I don't know how extensively you have tested, but using

  ACCEPT_LICENSE="-* @FSF-APPROVED @OSI-APPROVED"

I'm simply not able to let the package manager install something that's
not free.  If there is a possibility, this would clearly qualify as a
bug.  If there are some, please give me a recipe, so that I can report
it.

Bye,
Tassilo