| 1 |
On Tue, 21 Apr 2015 20:20:45 +0200 |
| 2 |
Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> I wonder if we should introduce an FSF-NONFREE group which would |
| 5 |
> contain either all licenses from [1], or only the conflicting ones. |
| 6 |
> Then users could set their ACCEPT_LICENSES variable to e.g. |
| 7 |
> "-* @FREE -@FSF-NONFREE" in order to avoid software released under |
| 8 |
> such licenses. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
I don't see a super-strong need for this feature, but if you want it I |
| 11 |
won't object. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
However please give it another name. When I first read FSF-NONFREE I |
| 14 |
got a totally different idea what it is (like in "non-free licenses |
| 15 |
approved by FSF"). |
| 16 |
I think it would probably be good to use a longer name which clearly |
| 17 |
states what we're talking about. I think the few people that will care |
| 18 |
about this feature can add a longer and more convoluted name in their |
| 19 |
config. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
What I'd like to avoid is confusing people with it. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
(something like @OSI_BUT_NOT_FSF_APPROVED maybe?) |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
Hanno Böck |
| 27 |
http://hboeck.de/ |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
mail/jabber: hanno@××××××.de |
| 30 |
GPG: BBB51E42 |
Archives