View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
ISHAIM Apprentice
Joined: 08 Oct 2006 Posts: 161 Location: Chicago, IL
|
Posted: Sat Jan 30, 2010 8:58 pm Post subject: Masked by: * license(s) [SOLVED] |
|
|
Hello,
During the end of any successful portage operation, I get the following messages about licenses:
Code: | !!! 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.
Last edited by ISHAIM on Sat Jan 30, 2010 9:21 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Shining Arcanine Veteran
Joined: 24 Sep 2009 Posts: 1110
|
Posted: Sat Jan 30, 2010 9:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
NeddySeagoon Administrator
Joined: 05 Jul 2003 Posts: 54639 Location: 56N 3W
|
Posted: Sat Jan 30, 2010 9:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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. _________________ Regards,
NeddySeagoon
Computer users fall into two groups:-
those that do backups
those that have never had a hard drive fail. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ISHAIM Apprentice
Joined: 08 Oct 2006 Posts: 161 Location: Chicago, IL
|
Posted: Sat Jan 30, 2010 9:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Solved. Thank you very much. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Gentree Watchman
Joined: 01 Jul 2003 Posts: 5350 Location: France, Old Europe
|
Posted: Sat Jan 30, 2010 11:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Shining Arcanine wrote: | 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="*" _________________ Linux, because I'd rather own a free OS than steal one that's not worth paying for.
Gentoo because I'm a masochist
AthlonXP-M on A7N8X. Portage ~x86 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
dambacher Apprentice
Joined: 11 Feb 2003 Posts: 290 Location: Germany
|
Posted: Sun Jan 31, 2010 3:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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: |
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 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
dambacher Apprentice
Joined: 11 Feb 2003 Posts: 290 Location: Germany
|
Posted: Sun Jan 31, 2010 3:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
dambacher wrote: | And where can I see wich licenses are accepted by default?
|
/etc/make.globals sais
Code: | ACCEPT_LICENSE="* -@EULA" |
What this means, you can fiund it in /usr/portage/profiles/license_groups wich is a rather long list.
/dambacher |
|
Back to top |
|
|
jcc3 n00b
Joined: 25 Mar 2008 Posts: 18
|
Posted: Sun Jan 31, 2010 11:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Gentree wrote: | Shining Arcanine wrote: | 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"? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
AllenJB Veteran
Joined: 02 Sep 2005 Posts: 1285
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Sadako Advocate
Joined: 05 Aug 2004 Posts: 3792 Location: sleeping in the bathtub
|
Posted: Sun Feb 07, 2010 5:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Gentree wrote: | Shining Arcanine wrote: | 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... _________________ "You have to invite me in" |
|
Back to top |
|
|
pandora Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 25 Sep 2002 Posts: 93 Location: UK
|
Posted: Sun Feb 21, 2010 5:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Gentree wrote: | Shining Arcanine wrote: | 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. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
NeddySeagoon Administrator
Joined: 05 Jul 2003 Posts: 54639 Location: 56N 3W
|
Posted: Sun Feb 21, 2010 5:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
pandora,
Whats legally binding varies from jursidiction to jursidiction. _________________ Regards,
NeddySeagoon
Computer users fall into two groups:-
those that do backups
those that have never had a hard drive fail. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ShadowCat8 Apprentice
Joined: 07 Oct 2008 Posts: 173 Location: San Bernardino, CA, USA
|
Posted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 8:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well, remember what one of the Open-Source Movement's founding fathers had once said:
Quote: | "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 |
_________________ ________________________
"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not
certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."
-- Albert Einstein |
|
Back to top |
|
|
honeymak Guru
Joined: 30 Dec 2002 Posts: 591
|
Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 1:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
portage/package.license is NOT working after update portage
_________________ hackers - make sth real
academics - read sth said to be real |
|
Back to top |
|
|
wlchase Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 04 Jul 2003 Posts: 81 Location: Texas
|
Posted: Wed Mar 31, 2010 4:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I concur, if it matters.
Bill
EDIT: And now, 2.6.31-r10 sources & portage 2.1.7.17, it works again!
B |
|
Back to top |
|
|
dirkfanick Apprentice
Joined: 12 Jan 2011 Posts: 201 Location: germany - hamburg
|
Posted: Wed Aug 24, 2011 5:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
For "fun":
Quote: | 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. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
F1r31c3r Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 31 Aug 2007 Posts: 107 Location: UK
|
Posted: Thu Sep 26, 2013 4:36 pm Post subject: Say what? |
|
|
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. _________________ A WikI, A collection of mass misinformation based on opinion and manipulation by a deception of freedom.
If we know the truth, then we should be free from deception (John 8:42-47 ) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
mv Watchman
Joined: 20 Apr 2005 Posts: 6780
|
Posted: Thu Sep 26, 2013 4:59 pm Post subject: Re: Say what? |
|
|
F1r31c3r wrote: | 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... |
|
Back to top |
|
|
F1r31c3r Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 31 Aug 2007 Posts: 107 Location: UK
|
Posted: Thu Sep 26, 2013 5:04 pm Post subject: Re: Say what? |
|
|
mv wrote: |
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.
mv wrote: | 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. _________________ A WikI, A collection of mass misinformation based on opinion and manipulation by a deception of freedom.
If we know the truth, then we should be free from deception (John 8:42-47 ) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
cord Guru
Joined: 28 Apr 2007 Posts: 346
|
Posted: Wed Feb 11, 2015 3:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Proper value is Code: | ACCEPT_LICENSE="-* @FREE" |
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
F1r31c3r Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 31 Aug 2007 Posts: 107 Location: UK
|
Posted: Sat Feb 21, 2015 8:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
cord wrote: | Proper value is Code: | 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. _________________ A WikI, A collection of mass misinformation based on opinion and manipulation by a deception of freedom.
If we know the truth, then we should be free from deception (John 8:42-47 ) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
NeddySeagoon Administrator
Joined: 05 Jul 2003 Posts: 54639 Location: 56N 3W
|
Posted: Sat Feb 21, 2015 8:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
F1r31c3r,
I think USE=deblob makes the kernel @free _________________ Regards,
NeddySeagoon
Computer users fall into two groups:-
those that do backups
those that have never had a hard drive fail. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
F1r31c3r Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 31 Aug 2007 Posts: 107 Location: UK
|
Posted: Sat Feb 21, 2015 8:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
NeddySeagoon wrote: | 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 _________________ A WikI, A collection of mass misinformation based on opinion and manipulation by a deception of freedom.
If we know the truth, then we should be free from deception (John 8:42-47 ) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
cord Guru
Joined: 28 Apr 2007 Posts: 346
|
Posted: Thu Aug 27, 2015 7:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
F1r31c3r wrote: | I have that use flag enabled and portage still asked me to put licence in the package.licences |
Unconfirmed.
Code: | USE="deblob" emerge -av hardened-sources |
satisfies @FREE
F1r31c3r, what packages you need which not satisfy @FREE? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
kumari n00b
Joined: 14 Jun 2022 Posts: 1
|
Posted: Tue Jun 14, 2022 10:25 am Post subject: Re: Masked by: * license(s) [SOLVED] |
|
|
Hey,
How did you solve this problem? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|