| 1 |
On 07/25/2013 09:52 PM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: |
| 2 |
> hasufell schrieb: |
| 3 |
>> I think according to our philsophy and social contract we should |
| 4 |
>> make people aware of free software and because of that also change |
| 5 |
>> the default to: |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
>> ACCEPT_LICENSE="@FREE" |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> The problem with this approach is that while the license might qualify |
| 10 |
> as "free", the software itself might not. This was already pointed out |
| 11 |
> by someone else in this thread. So we would block some but not all |
| 12 |
> non-free software. Software that is under non-copyleft free license |
| 13 |
> (BSD, MIT, X11, Apache-2.0, ...) could still be distributed as |
| 14 |
> sourceless binaries. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> Also this would affect the kernel sources when deblobbing is disabled. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> I am not against this move, but this will require a lot of effort in |
| 19 |
> educating users about the consequences. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
I don't see the problem. BSD, MIT, Apache-2.0 are all GPL-Compatible and |
| 24 |
not even a pure GNU system bans them. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Such details can be explained in an informative section in the handbook |
| 27 |
or the wiki which was already suggested before. |
Archives