| 1 |
It might sound a bit rude but i think the defaults should be |
| 2 |
defined that most of the time only zealots need to tweak |
| 3 |
them. I think most users don't care about most licenses and |
| 4 |
shouldn't need to mess with this. |
| 5 |
Ofcourse exceptions like ID exists (I guess mostly because the |
| 6 |
companies demand that you click "OK" on something). |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
But don't make the user configure licenses for djb ware etc. |
| 9 |
It will only annoy 95% of the people. |
| 10 |
Let the zealots do the work and not the average user who simply |
| 11 |
doesn't care about that licensing stuff. Especially licenses |
| 12 |
which only have an impact on the distribution of software and |
| 13 |
not the usage. (exceptions like ID described above). |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
On Fri, Nov 21, 2003 at 10:07:04AM -0800, Erik Swanson wrote: |
| 16 |
> On Fri, 2003-11-21 at 09:32, Jon Portnoy wrote: |
| 17 |
> > The social contract states that Gentoo Linux will never _depend_ on |
| 18 |
> > nonfree software. However, we still provide it. If we moved over to a |
| 19 |
> > Debian-esque "if you want nonfree software, you need to change settings" |
| 20 |
> > it would irritate a decently large number of people. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> My suggestion of a conservative default was under the assumption that it |
| 23 |
> would be trivial to accept additional licenses. An interactive "y" after |
| 24 |
> being shown the license, for example. I agree that a more liberal |
| 25 |
> default would be in order if it required substantial effort (such as |
| 26 |
> editing make.conf) to accept additional licenses. |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> -- |
| 29 |
> Erik Swanson <gentoo-dev@××××××××××××.name> |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> -- |
| 33 |
> gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives