| 1 |
To be honest Jason, I think we need to leave it as is. Gentoo is a distro |
| 2 |
that allows us to get work done and not get into the "if you use non-free |
| 3 |
software you have betrayed humanity" argument. If we're not careful we will |
| 4 |
end up the same as Debian. The person raising the question is a zealot who |
| 5 |
will accept nothing less then all free software and no non-free. That was |
| 6 |
explained many times and he, like all of us have a choice - use a distro that |
| 7 |
fits whatever philosophy you have. Gentoo does not have the Debian |
| 8 |
philosophy so for people who want that they can use Debian or another |
| 9 |
equivalent. For those of us who just want to do a job and if non-free is the |
| 10 |
best then we'll use the non-free/commerical stuff and stick with Gentoo. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Why should all of us who agree with the Gentoo philosopy have to add a bunch |
| 13 |
of licenses stuff to make.conf or wherever just to satisfy people who would |
| 14 |
be happier with Debian type distros anyway. We can get in a situation like |
| 15 |
those who try to be politically correct - they are constantly modifying their |
| 16 |
school, program, whatever to fit the whims of the latest politically correct |
| 17 |
mandate. Gentoo's social contract is available to read - if we feel so |
| 18 |
strongly that we can't agree to then we can go to another distro. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
The id licensing is, to me, an odd case. That's the only package it's been |
| 21 |
an issue. VMware and the others seem happy to let us have it in portage - |
| 22 |
probably because they are time limited demos. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Don't mess with a good setup - it isn't broken so don't fix it <G>. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
On Thursday 20 November 2003 20:50, you wrote: |
| 30 |
> Hello all, |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> This question was posted to -user as well and has turned into a huge |
| 33 |
> discussion. It seems that the key concern of the original poster is the |
| 34 |
> free vs non-free bit. |
| 35 |
> |
| 36 |
> Several weeks (months?) ago there was a discussion of licenses with regard |
| 37 |
> to id's software. In that, I suggested that a user need to accept all |
| 38 |
> licenses before being able to install software. That was disregarded due to |
| 39 |
> the fact that there are 100s (297) licenses in portage. |
| 40 |
> |
| 41 |
> However, users being forced to accept a license was implemented for the |
| 42 |
> specific case of id's software. I again propose that this be made the |
| 43 |
> default for all ebuilds (through portage rather than each ebuild). To |
| 44 |
> counter the massive amount of licenses, I suggest having reasonable |
| 45 |
> defaults for ACCEPT_LICENSES is make.defaults. |
| 46 |
> |
| 47 |
> The reason for this is that the free vs non-free questioning comes up on |
| 48 |
> -user every month or two. Each time, the answer is invariably "you wont |
| 49 |
> find what you're looking for here". I would prefer to be able to say, |
| 50 |
> "sure, Gentoo can do that". And it seems if the above were implemented it |
| 51 |
> would be as easy as ACCEPT_LICENSES="-* GPL-1 GPL-2 LGPL-2 LGPL-2.1". (I'm |
| 52 |
> not so familiar with which licenses but I'm sure someone that cares would |
| 53 |
> be). |
| 54 |
> |
| 55 |
> As a added benefit, using something similar to the above would ensure that |
| 56 |
> a stage3 tarball would never be 'polluted'. I'm sure there would be other |
| 57 |
> benefits, too. |
| 58 |
> |
| 59 |
> Regards, |
| 60 |
> Jason |
| 61 |
|
| 62 |
-- |
| 63 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives