| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Luke-Jr wrote: |
| 5 |
> I have been reporting bugs over the past few months regarding licensing |
| 6 |
> issues, and inappropriate dependencies on non-Free software. Someone |
| 7 |
> recommended I begin a thread on -dev, however, seeing as it may be of greater |
| 8 |
> concern in regard to Gentoo's Social Contract. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
How have these bugs been handled? |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> Reading over the Social Contract, there is a bit of ambiguity about what is |
| 13 |
> meant by Gentoo not depending on non-compliant software: does this refer to |
| 14 |
> only the base system? A specific desktop or server configuration, or |
| 15 |
> configurations? To the maximum extent possible where upstream makes it |
| 16 |
> possible? |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> The most recent issues I have encountered are quite troubling with regard to |
| 19 |
> wanting a Free desktop OS: Gentoo now patches KDE to depend on a specific non- |
| 20 |
> Free font, and Poppler has a hard dependency on the non-Free poppler-data |
| 21 |
> (which is only needed for displaying non-embedded non-Latin fonts). Short of |
| 22 |
> workarounds via package.provided, these two dependencies make a simple KDE |
| 23 |
> desktop impossible on Gentoo without non-Free software. The xorg-x11 7.4 |
| 24 |
> metapackage also added a number of dependencies on non-Free fonts. There have |
| 25 |
> been a number of other similar issues I've encountered over the past year. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
I would not like it if we are patching software to depend on non-free fonts. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
> To help mitigate this problem, I propose completion of GLEP 23's |
| 30 |
> implementation; we already have a working ACCEPT_LICENSE, but the "minimum" |
| 31 |
> groups (in particular, @OSI-APPROVED) are as of yet still not defined. By |
| 32 |
> enabling more users to filter by approved licenses, I feel these issues will |
| 33 |
> get more attention. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
I don't know how this has been implemented. I believe they are just lists, but I |
| 36 |
am not sure where. We should probably have some file such that for each license |
| 37 |
we can specify whether or not it is a member of some group. That will make it |
| 38 |
clear which license has been considered for what: |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
GPL-2:OSI,FSF |
| 41 |
MS-EULA:!OSI,!FSF |
| 42 |
license-X: |
| 43 |
license-Y:FSF |
| 44 |
licenze-Z:OSI |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
With lists it isn't clear whether a license does not belong to a group or hasn't |
| 47 |
been considered. Unless we introduce the complement groups explicitly. For each |
| 48 |
group OSI we also have the group !OSI. That way the infos would be there, even |
| 49 |
though they would still need to be extracted by some tool. |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
> Comments? :) |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
Done! ;) |
| 54 |
|
| 55 |
> Luke |
| 56 |
> |
| 57 |
> P.S. I'm subscribed to -nomail, so if your reply is directed specifically to |
| 58 |
> me or you want to ensure I read it, feel free to CC. |
| 59 |
|
| 60 |
Live Free or Die, |
| 61 |
|
| 62 |
Marijn |
| 63 |
|
| 64 |
- -- |
| 65 |
Sarcasm puts the iron in irony, cynicism the steel. |
| 66 |
|
| 67 |
Marijn Schouten (hkBst), Gentoo Lisp project, Gentoo ML |
| 68 |
<http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/lisp/>, #gentoo-{lisp,ml} on FreeNode |
| 69 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 70 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.10 (GNU/Linux) |
| 71 |
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org |
| 72 |
|
| 73 |
iEYEARECAAYFAkm497EACgkQp/VmCx0OL2yCzQCfUK4d7HJxN8vPXQxt2zxAAt3D |
| 74 |
KfAAni2yfu0V3+nv4iZsSWN7bmb/Wsqj |
| 75 |
=ZcqH |
| 76 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives