Re: [gentoo-dev] Adding AdobeFlash-10{,.1} licenses to EULA group

[Domen Kožar]

This should probably be updated:

http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/gentoo-amd64-faq.xml#flash

On Fri, 2010-06-18 at 15:58 +0200, Angelo Arrifano wrote:
> On 18-06-2010 12:16, Alec Warner wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 2:08 AM, Lars Wendler <polynomial-c@g.o> wrote:
> >> Am Freitag 18 Juni 2010, 03:42:29 schrieb Brian Harring:
> >>> On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 05:14:16PM -0500, Dale wrote:
> >>>> Lars Wendler wrote:
> >>>>> Am Mittwoch 16 Juni 2010, 14:45:21 schrieb Angelo Arrifano:
> >>>>>> On 16-06-2010 14:40, Jim Ramsay wrote:
> >>>>>>> Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn<chithanh@g.o>  wrote:
> >>>>>>>> One notable section is 7.6 in which Adobe reserves the right to
> >>>>>>>> download and install additional Content Protection software on the
> >>>>>>>> user's PC.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Not like anyone will actually *read* the license before adding it to
> >>>>>>> their accept group, but if they did this would indeed be an important
> >>>>>>> thing of which users should be aware.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I defend it is our job to warn users about this kind of details. To me
> >>>>>> it sounds that a einfo at post-build phase would do the job, what do
> >>>>>> you guys think?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Definitely yes! This is a very dangerous snippet in Adobe's license
> >>>>> which should be pretty clearly pointed at to every user.
> >>>>
> >>>> Could that also include a alternative to adobe?  If there is one.
> >>>
> >>> The place to advocate free alternatives (or upstreams that are
> >>> nonsuck) isn't in einfo messages in ebuilds, it's on folks blogs or at
> >>> best in metadata.xml... einfo should be "this is the things to watch
> >>> for in using this/setting it up" not "these guys are evil, use one of
> >>> the free alternatives!".
>
> 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.
>
> Also, I'm pretty sure seeing nvidia-drivers suggesting the use of the
> kernel driver when using the hardened profile.
> >>
> >> 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.
> >
> > The real meat here is that you want Gentoo to take some kind of stand
> > on particular licensing terms.  I don't think this is a good
> > precedent[0] to set for our users.  It presumes we will essentially
> > read the license in its entirety and inform users of the parts that we
> > think are 'scary.'[1]  The user is the person who is installing and
> > running the software.  The user is the person who should be reading
> > and agreeing with any licensing terms lest they find the teams
> > unappealing.  I don't find it unreasonable to implement a tool as
> > Duncan suggested because it is not a judgement but a statement of
> > fact.  "The license for app/foo has changed from X to Y.  You should
> > review the changes accordingly by running <blah>"
>
> I'm the person who initially proposed warning users on elog. The initial
> proposal only states about:
> 1) A warning about change of licensing terms.
> 2) A warning that "additional Content Protection software" might be
> installed without users consent.
>
> In fact, portage already warns the users about bad coding practices,
> install of executables with runtime text relocations, etc.. How is this
> different?
> If me, as a user, didn't know about such detail (who reads software
> license agreements anyway?) and someday I hypothetically find a
> executable running without my permission as my user account and I'm able
> to associate it with Adobe's flash, I would be pissed off to no extent.
> And guess what? First thing I would *blame* is flash maintainers.
> I expect package maintainers to be more familiar with the packages they
> maintain than me. As consequence, I expect them to advice me about
> non-obvious details on those packages. At least that's what I try to do
> on the packages I maintain.
> GNU/Linux is all about choice. Stating, during install, that a package
> might later install additional stuff will just provide a choice to the
> user, not conditioning it.
>
> Regards,
> - Angelo
> >
> > [0] There is an existing precedent for reading the license and
> > ensuring Gentoo itself is not violating the license by distributing
> > said software.  Gentoo takes measures to reduce its own liability in
> > case a lawsuit arises; however this is a pretty narrow case.
> > [1] The other bad part here is that 'scary' is itself a judgement call
> > about licensing terms.  I do not want to have arguments with users
> > about which terms I should have to warn them about versus not.  Users
> > should (ideally) be reading the software licenses for software they
> > choose to use.
> >
> > -A
> >
> >>
> >>> Grok?
> >>>
> >>> ~harring
> >>
> >> --
> >> Lars Wendler (Polynomial-C)
> >> Gentoo developer and bug-wrangler
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>