Re: [gentoo-dev] License Checking

[brett holcomb]

Sorry, it was supposed to be on list.  I'm using webmail. 
 Until recently all replies were sent to the list without 
fail.  Recently, I 've had some sent to the poster and not 
the list.  I'll have to double check them now.

On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 23:16:38 +0900
  Jason Stubbs <jasonbstubbs@×××××××××××.com> wrote:
>Please never ever reply to me off list.
>
>On Friday 28 November 2003 22:57, brett holcomb wrote:
>> Because I've finally found a distro that works. I've
>> watched Unix mess up the desktop, been condemmed to use
>> Windows for years, used Linux and suffered the RPM mess.
>>  I finally found Gentoo which is an almost perfect
>>distro.
>>  It provides a large number of packages, is easy to
>> install, maintain, and upgrade and allows us choice in
>> what we want to run. And then people want to Debianize
>> Gentoo.  Yes, they still do - that's not dead by any
>> means.  It shows in some of the comments and in the
>> attitude of which "immoral licenses" was one I've
>>received
>> in this thread.  It's an attitude that anyone who uses
>> non-free isn't worth consideration so let a third party
>> fill in the gaps or they can go elsewhere. Well, we
>>can't.
>>  The free only can always go to Debian - we only can go
>> back to RPM distros!  It appears choice is good as long
>> it's free-only.
>
>While some people may have that attitude it never makes
>its way into anything
>that is released with Gentoo. Do you think this sort of
>debate has never came
>up before?
>
>>   I have no problem with adding license handling being
>> modified so that all of us can build systems as we
>>desire
>> and that allow us to do our jobs.  I do have a problem
>> with Gentoo being changed so that we who use non-free
>> software have to make the changes - why should we.   If
>> someone is that hot to have it change let them make the
>> changes to their make.conf or whatever file.  Yes, even
>> having to do that change may be a small item but the
>> camel's nose appeared small when he first shoved it
>>under
>> the tent.   I've said more than I should so I'll just
>> watch and see what happens.
>
>Most new Linux users assume that everything associated
>with Linux is free. The
>only reason I can see to have a default of "free-only"
>licenses is to make
>sure those users are aware of the agreement under which
>they're using the
>software. As well as that, many users who use "non-free"
>software (myself
>included) are interested in the terms under which they
>are using it. Your
>opinion doesn't sound so much like the free vs. non-free;
>it sounds like
>those who care about licensing vs. those who don't.
>
>The addition of licensing to Gentoo is in no way related
>to the free vs.
>non-free debate; only the defaults is. When the defaults
>are decided it won't
>be by a vote on free vs. non-free; it will be decided
>with valid reasoning as
>in the above. Until there is (at least some) concensus on
>that reasoning, the
>decision will not be finalised.
>
>Jason
>
>--
>gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list
>


--
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list