1 |
Richard Freeman wrote: |
2 |
> Mounir Lamouri wrote: |
3 |
>> It looks like some licenses need acceptance. |
4 |
> I prefer the wording: some software vendors claim that their licenses |
5 |
> must be accepted to use the software. I'm not aware of any law which |
6 |
> requires a license to use software - at least not inside the USA (your |
7 |
> jurisdiction may vary). |
8 |
I'm not a lawyer so I can't say for sure some software _need_ explicit |
9 |
license acceptance to be used. However, I'm quite sure using a software |
10 |
means accept the license. |
11 |
Someone experienced in this area is welcome for clarifications. |
12 |
|
13 |
> A license is certainly required to distribute software - hence |
14 |
> RESTRICT="mirror" or USE="bindist". Users typically do not distribute |
15 |
> software, therefore users typically do not need a license to use it. |
16 |
I think this vision is too simple. Some licenses add rules and rights |
17 |
users should know. Some applications can use your personal data (like |
18 |
picasa) or forbid you to try to do reverse engineering even if |
19 |
authorized in your country (can't remember name). |
20 |
So, even if most users don't care, we should at least help them know. |
21 |
Because, at the moment, I can install something with a license saying "i |
22 |
can use personal data you put in this app" without even have a clue. |
23 |
|
24 |
> Frankly, I'd like to see ACCEPT_LICENSE=* be the default. If some are |
25 |
> concerned about the legal issues then have the default be |
26 |
> ACCEPT_LICENSE = * -@EULA and let users trim it down to "*" on their |
27 |
> own. Portage should not set arbitrary restrictions on preventing |
28 |
> accepting *. |
29 |
> |
30 |
> I'd definitely like the default to be that packages are accepted |
31 |
> unless a dev somehow indicates otherwise. The overwhelming majority |
32 |
> of packages out there do not have EULA issues. |
33 |
> |
34 |
> Keep in mind that licensing is a legal issue, and legal issues are |
35 |
> determined by the law, and the law is determined by where you live. |
36 |
> If a user lives in a country that says you can sell Windows CD-Rs at a |
37 |
> Lemonade stand, it isn't the job of Gentoo to step in and tell them |
38 |
> otherwise. We want to give users the tools they need to help stay |
39 |
> compliant with the laws that govern them - we don't want to assume the |
40 |
> responsibility for their compliance. |
41 |
Sure, licensing is somewhat linked with where you live but I don't think |
42 |
that's helping your point. |
43 |
By auto-enabling only a set of licenses we can be sure at 99% users will |
44 |
be safe. By auto-enabling everything, we can put our users in an illegal |
45 |
situation where he is living. Better to be a little bit restrictive than |
46 |
too comprehensive. |
47 |
I think except for flash plugin and graphic drivers our users will not |
48 |
be too annoyed by a restrictive ACCEPT_LICENSE. There is only a few app |
49 |
widely use on GNU/Linux which aren't free. I can only see Skype. |
50 |
And maybe it will help users to think about alternatives before using |
51 |
proprietary software. |
52 |
|
53 |
Mounir |