| 1 |
Jon Portnoy <avenj@g.o> writes: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On Fri, Nov 21, 2003 at 02:54:39AM -0800, Erik Swanson wrote: |
| 4 |
>> On Fri, 2003-11-21 at 02:33, donnie berkholz wrote: |
| 5 |
>> > I think we should accept all the licenses by default except the ones for |
| 6 |
>> > which the ACCEPT_LICENSE variable originally existed (the id games ones), |
| 7 |
>> > since users must be forced to read and agree to those. This would keep the |
| 8 |
>> > change seamless for the user unless said user wishes to change things. |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
>> As a user, I'd prefer if only OSI-approved licenses were accepted by |
| 11 |
>> default. This also seems like it'd be most in keeping with the Gentoo |
| 12 |
>> Social Contract. |
| 13 |
>> |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> The social contract states that Gentoo Linux will never _depend_ on |
| 16 |
> nonfree software. However, we still provide it. If we moved over to a |
| 17 |
> Debian-esque "if you want nonfree software, you need to change settings" |
| 18 |
> it would irritate a decently large number of people. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
[...] |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Jon, |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
That's such a vague statement we have in the social contract. I've |
| 25 |
always wondered what it meant specifically. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Matt |
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
Matthew Kennedy |
| 30 |
Gentoo Linux Developer |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives