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 |
> |