| 1 |
On Sat, Nov 22, 2003 at 01:06:05AM -0600, Matthew Kennedy wrote: |
| 2 |
> Seriously though, it is my impression that you may be surprised how |
| 3 |
> many folks care that their box uses free software only. You might |
| 4 |
> want to check the Debian news out of late. There's a proposal to do |
| 5 |
> away with(?) non-free in their distro (ie. clause 5. in their social |
| 6 |
> contract would be removed). |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> I suppose I am dismayed that we are failing to promote free software |
| 9 |
> over proprietary software. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
It is not Gentoo's goal to become a free-software only distribution. It is |
| 12 |
important that we, as metadistribution, give the users the choice to choose |
| 13 |
for "free-software only" if they want. I'm sure we can all agree on this |
| 14 |
ability to choose. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
So yes, to use your example, it is important that gamers don't quit Gentoo |
| 17 |
because of a decision we force upon them, instead of having them decide |
| 18 |
theirselves. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Implementing an ACCEPT_LICENSES variable is a very important proposal. The |
| 21 |
question is what we would use "per default". Do we only accept free (as in |
| 22 |
speech) licenses per default, and have the user choose the others |
| 23 |
individually, or accept free (as in beer) licenses per default, having the |
| 24 |
user restrict/extend the amount of licenses he wishes? |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
I can certainly agree if we go for the former (from a GNU/OSI perspective), |
| 27 |
but also if the latter is chosen (from a userfriendly perspective). |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Wkr, |
| 30 |
Sven Vermeulen |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
^__^ And Larry saw that it was Good. |
| 34 |
(oo) Sven Vermeulen |
| 35 |
(__) http://www.gentoo.org Gentoo Documentation Project |
Archives