| 1 |
On 07/25/2013 09:07 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote: |
| 2 |
> El jue, 25-07-2013 a las 11:58 -0700, Matt Turner escribió: |
| 3 |
>> On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 11:56 AM, Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> I disagree because I don't think "promoting" free software should imply |
| 5 |
>>> we shouldn't allow non-free software to be installed easily :/ |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
>> Let's not claim that modifying make.conf is anything but trivial. |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> It's trivial (I always overwrite it to simply put "*"), but why someone |
| 11 |
> installing a package not using that FREE licenses will need to edit it? |
| 12 |
> How does it "promote" free software? I don't think making installation |
| 13 |
> of other software more difficult is the right way to promote it. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> What apart of showing users a new "error" by default adds this decision? |
| 16 |
> I think the way to promote free software is to be sure our virtuals list |
| 17 |
> free alternatives in first time, that way people will get free software |
| 18 |
> when packages are providing same functionality. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> But feel free to do what you prefer, I haven't ever expended much time |
| 21 |
> in all this licensing stuff (even preferring free licenses) and I know |
| 22 |
> how this usually end (this reminds me last time I talked with an openBSD |
| 23 |
> developer that works with my father about how he disagrees with GPL and |
| 24 |
> similar :P) |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
It is not so much about what this does "improve" technically or if this |
| 30 |
act alone promotes free software. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
It's mainly about consistency with our social contract and will make |
| 33 |
people aware that gentoo by default blocks non-free software, because |
| 34 |
every user who wants more than that, will have to edit make.conf. |
Archives