Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Alec Warner <antarus@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Adding AdobeFlash-10{,.1} licenses to EULA group
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 10:17:02
Message-Id: AANLkTimufQyHQ9rMvDyZ9XhZ1m-wU8K4pz21I52DvgzD@mail.gmail.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Adding AdobeFlash-10{,.1} licenses to EULA group by Lars Wendler
1 On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 2:08 AM, Lars Wendler <polynomial-c@g.o> wrote:
2 > Am Freitag 18 Juni 2010, 03:42:29 schrieb Brian Harring:
3 >> On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 05:14:16PM -0500, Dale wrote:
4 >> > Lars Wendler wrote:
5 >> > > Am Mittwoch 16 Juni 2010, 14:45:21 schrieb Angelo Arrifano:
6 >> > >> On 16-06-2010 14:40, Jim Ramsay wrote:
7 >> > >>> Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn<chithanh@g.o>  wrote:
8 >> > >>>> One notable section is 7.6 in which Adobe reserves the right to
9 >> > >>>> download and install additional Content Protection software on the
10 >> > >>>> user's PC.
11 >> > >>>
12 >> > >>> Not like anyone will actually *read* the license before adding it to
13 >> > >>> their accept group, but if they did this would indeed be an important
14 >> > >>> thing of which users should be aware.
15 >> > >>
16 >> > >> I defend it is our job to warn users about this kind of details. To me
17 >> > >> it sounds that a einfo at post-build phase would do the job, what do
18 >> > >> you guys think?
19 >> > >
20 >> > > Definitely yes! This is a very dangerous snippet in Adobe's license
21 >> > > which should be pretty clearly pointed at to every user.
22 >> >
23 >> > Could that also include a alternative to adobe?  If there is one.
24 >>
25 >> The place to advocate free alternatives (or upstreams that are
26 >> nonsuck) isn't in einfo messages in ebuilds, it's on folks blogs or at
27 >> best in metadata.xml... einfo should be "this is the things to watch
28 >> for in using this/setting it up" not "these guys are evil, use one of
29 >> the free alternatives!".
30 >
31 > Maybe I expressed myself a bit misinterpretative. I don't want to request an
32 > elog message telling users about alternative packages. But in my opinion an
33 > elog message pointing at the bald-faced parts of Adobe's license should be
34 > added. These parts about allowing Adobe to install further content protection
35 > software is just too dangerous in my opinion.
36
37 I will ignore the technical portion where basically any binary on your
38 system; even binaries you compiled yourself have the ability to
39 'install things you do not like' when run as root (and sometimes when
40 run as a normal user as well.)
41
42 The real meat here is that you want Gentoo to take some kind of stand
43 on particular licensing terms. I don't think this is a good
44 precedent[0] to set for our users. It presumes we will essentially
45 read the license in its entirety and inform users of the parts that we
46 think are 'scary.'[1] The user is the person who is installing and
47 running the software. The user is the person who should be reading
48 and agreeing with any licensing terms lest they find the teams
49 unappealing. I don't find it unreasonable to implement a tool as
50 Duncan suggested because it is not a judgement but a statement of
51 fact. "The license for app/foo has changed from X to Y. You should
52 review the changes accordingly by running <blah>"
53
54 [0] There is an existing precedent for reading the license and
55 ensuring Gentoo itself is not violating the license by distributing
56 said software. Gentoo takes measures to reduce its own liability in
57 case a lawsuit arises; however this is a pretty narrow case.
58 [1] The other bad part here is that 'scary' is itself a judgement call
59 about licensing terms. I do not want to have arguments with users
60 about which terms I should have to warn them about versus not. Users
61 should (ideally) be reading the software licenses for software they
62 choose to use.
63
64 -A
65
66 >
67 >> Grok?
68 >>
69 >> ~harring
70 >
71 > --
72 > Lars Wendler (Polynomial-C)
73 > Gentoo developer and bug-wrangler
74 >
75 >

Replies