packages with license problems

[Lukas Dobrek]

Ok Artur has pointed many packages with a bad license. 

>From some point of view there are 2 main types of them.

1. We cannot distribute binnaries in any form.
2. We cannot distribute binnaries in modify form.

Problem of the secound type is easy to solve 
it is enought to distribute srpms. And everybody 
will do rpm --rebuild *.sprm

But we should have a easy way to distinguish this
packages from the adders and builder should refuse 
the idea of copying rpms to ftp. The solution is 
to modify buildrpm. 

This packages in source form should be on the oficial 
pld images  as well. How to mark tham I don't know. 


The problem is with the first type. I thing once
in mplayer we had a solution. spec contain a macro 
I_agree_that_it_is_stupid_to_do_tricks_like_that_And_accept_license.

if during compilation This macro is set to 
1 in %setup one  can download the required sources using wget. 


The point is that this macro should be always set to 0 on builder.
And this packages should also be distributed only in srpm form, hence
marked in the same way as packages from a point 1. 


Lukasz



-- 
£ukasz Dobrek
   An optimist believes that we live in the best of all possible worlds.
   A pessimist is sure that this must be so.