Re: Anti-features

--=-=-=
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Sam James <[email protected]> writes:

> Anna Vyalkova <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> On 2026-03-10, Filip Kobierski wrote:
>>> Maybe one could flag slop packages with a LICENSE variable that is not=
=20
>>> accepted by default?
>>> That would allow users to still have the final say in what can run on t=
heir Gentoo systems but would be aware that AI-SLOP license is suboptimal.
>>> Then I imagine the problem would be in marking packages as such...
>>> Also the name of the "LICENSE"; AI-SLOP seems in-line with Gentoo's app=
roach, alas I in my opinion is unprofessional. Plain AI does not really sou=
nd discouraging. Naming is a secondary issue though.
>>
>> I'd like to revive this discussion.
>
> (Did you lose In-Reply-To?)

(Sorry, it was missing in my client, but I see it's there.)

--=-=-=
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEBBAEWCgCpFiEEJaa7iN2bdkxrVUHCc4QJ9SDfkZAFAmps65AbFIAAAAAABAAO
bWFudTIsMi41KzEuMTIsMiwyXxSAAAAAAC4AKGlzc3Vlci1mcHJAbm90YXRpb25z
Lm9wZW5wZ3AuZmlmdGhob3JzZW1hbi5uZXQyNUE2QkI4OEREOUI3NjRDNkI1NTQx
QzI3Mzg0MDlGNTIwREY5MTkwDxxzYW1AZ2VudG9vLm9yZwAKCRBzhAn1IN+RkCyy
AP9iY8UDVwZUe0hr2L5F1vobxXf1R/+oKnnsOqosLtQQWgEAoU/uaX1BUBhDTnc2
3Rw7ugtEqJfcmPKH9tgaEWp9QQU=
=4VZG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--=-=-=--