| 1 |
Disclaimer - I too am not a lawyer. |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
Mounir Lamouri wrote: |
| 4 |
> I'm not a lawyer so I can't say for sure some software _need_ explicit |
| 5 |
> license acceptance to be used. However, I'm quite sure using a software |
| 6 |
> means accept the license. |
| 7 |
> Someone experienced in this area is welcome for clarifications. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Well, the basic gist of the argument is this: |
| 11 |
1. A license is required to do something that you otherwise wouldn't be |
| 12 |
allowed to do. For example, in my town I'm not allowed to burn garbage, |
| 13 |
but if I got special permission (a license) from the local government I |
| 14 |
could legally disregard the law. |
| 15 |
2. There are no laws that state that it is illegal to run software. |
| 16 |
3. Therefore, I don't need a license to run software - if I obtained it |
| 17 |
legally then it is mine to do with as I wish. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Copying or distribution is a different matter - copyright law forbids |
| 20 |
doing these (except under fair use), and therefore to distribute copies |
| 21 |
of software one requires a license. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
> I think this vision is too simple. Some licenses add rules and rights |
| 24 |
> users should know. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Well, some licenses _claim_ to add rules and rights. Whether they |
| 27 |
actually do so is debatable, and it can depend on the specifics of the |
| 28 |
situation and your legal jurisdiction. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
> Some applications can use your personal data (like |
| 31 |
> picasa) or forbid you to try to do reverse engineering even if |
| 32 |
> authorized in your country (can't remember name). |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Use of personal data is probably more about using an online service, and |
| 35 |
that falls more under the category of a service agreement and not a |
| 36 |
license. They really aren't the same thing even if companies tend to |
| 37 |
blend them together. Legally they aren't quite the same thing. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
I am not aware of any court which has upheld license provisions that |
| 40 |
prohibit reverse engineering. Again, almost EVERY proprietary license |
| 41 |
out there makes that claim, but that doesn't make it legally binding. |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
> So, even if most users don't care, we should at least help them know. |
| 44 |
> Because, at the moment, I can install something with a license saying "i |
| 45 |
> can use personal data you put in this app" without even have a clue. |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
I agree that we should make this information available, and I'm all for |
| 48 |
giving users tools to pick and choose what kinds of licenses they're |
| 49 |
willing to potentially subject themselves to. I just don't think we |
| 50 |
want to be the license police - so even if ACCEPT_LICENSE doesn't |
| 51 |
default to "*" we shouldn't prohibit this setting (and the example |
| 52 |
config file should contain a comment that clearly indicates that portage |
| 53 |
has this option). |
| 54 |
|
| 55 |
Also - any service that makes use of personal data without going to a |
| 56 |
fair amount of effort to ensure the user has agreed with this is asking |
| 57 |
for trouble. Indeed, in many countries this kind of data is subject to |
| 58 |
a great deal of protection no matter what the dialog box might say to |
| 59 |
the contrary. |
| 60 |
|
| 61 |
> By auto-enabling only a set of licenses we can be sure at 99% users will |
| 62 |
> be safe. By auto-enabling everything, we can put our users in an illegal |
| 63 |
> situation where he is living. Better to be a little bit restrictive than |
| 64 |
> too comprehensive. |
| 65 |
|
| 66 |
I do see the virtue of your argument - probably the practical solution |
| 67 |
would be ACCEPT_LICENSE="* -@EULA" or equivalent. However, we should |
| 68 |
certainly allow users to change this to ACCEPT_LICENSE=* if they so |
| 69 |
desire. In any case, not doing so is silly - somebody will just issue a |
| 70 |
patch for portage that does exactly this if we make it hard. I'd be |
| 71 |
happy to host it in an overlay (or in portage if there were no strong |
| 72 |
objections - though it seems silly to have an internal fork of the |
| 73 |
package manager which is why it should simply be configurable). Gentoo |
| 74 |
is about choice - we provide the tools, we don't tell users that live in |
| 75 |
Freedomland that Freedom isn't allowed for Gentoo users. Likewise, if |
| 76 |
Saint Ignutious wants to run "-* GPL" more power to him. |
| 77 |
|
| 78 |
> And maybe it will help users to think about alternatives before using |
| 79 |
> proprietary software. |
| 80 |
> |
| 81 |
|
| 82 |
Again, as long as the implementation is one that is designed to _help_ |
| 83 |
our users I think that this is exactly the gentoo way to do things. |
| 84 |
What we don't want to do is police our users, or "help" them in ways |
| 85 |
they don't want to be helped. |
Archives