Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Brian Harring <ferringb@×××××.com>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Adding AdobeFlash-10{,.1} licenses to EULA group
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 17:59:01
Message-Id: 20100618175619.GF12490@hrair
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Adding AdobeFlash-10{,.1} licenses to EULA group by Angelo Arrifano
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 03:58:22PM +0200, Angelo Arrifano wrote:
> Why? You are running a free and opensource operating system, what's > wrong suggesting *other* free and opensource alternatives? You are just > providing the user a choice, not to actually oblige him to install anything.
Some of us have 'no solicitation' signs on our doors for a reason. If you're not familiar w/ the concept, it's essentially a legal warning to keep various idealogical people from coming up to our doors and trying to tell us how their particular religion will save our souls. You've got some invalid assumptions here. While gentoo infra is ran on strictly OSS, the tree has always been pragmatic- because it's the consumers *choice* if they want to run an idealogically pure system. What you're proposing is converting the tree away from it's neutral stance that "the consumer is an adult and can make their own decisions" to "the consumer should be told they should use a better <insert idealogy> pkg regardless of if it's equivalent in features". This sort of thing is where I honestly wish there was a FSF no-solicitation sign I could purchase. We have license filtering already, meaning the pkg in question isn't even visible on a default portage install. This is equivalent to having a safety on the gun that is pkg merging. Your request is at best requesting a second safety be added, at worst trying to push idealogical decisions into what is purely a technical matter.
> >> Maybe I expressed myself a bit misinterpretative. I don't want to request an > >> elog message telling users about alternative packages. But in my opinion an > >> elog message pointing at the bald-faced parts of Adobe's license should be > >> added. These parts about allowing Adobe to install further content protection > >> software is just too dangerous in my opinion. > > > > I will ignore the technical portion where basically any binary on your > > system; even binaries you compiled yourself have the ability to > > 'install things you do not like' when run as root (and sometimes when > > run as a normal user as well.) > > For all the years running Linux, I never found that case.
That's reality. If in doubt, read some glsa/cve's, or go read into the recent brewha about unrealircd. Or go look into exactly what cpan, setuptools/dispatch, or gems do. Hell, look into the automated pkg updating in most integrated binary distro's. Can't count the number of times they've installed shit I didn't want (specifically not wanting it because it broke my system yet again). Simply put, you run whatever the hell you want on your system, literally, your choice. I will not deprive you of that choice, nor will I stick in little nagging messages to pkgs you use suggesting you use something I think is idealogically better (whether it be DRM related, proprietary license, or just plain binary blobs). Please show me the same respect I show you. Deal? It really is that simple from where I'm sitting. The user is an adult, they're free to make whatever decision they want (even if you vehemently think said decision is wrong). ~harring

Replies

Subject Author
[gentoo-dev] Re: Adding AdobeFlash-10{,.1} licenses to EULA group Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net>