| 1 |
>>>>> On Thu, 25 Jul 2013, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> hasufell schrieb: |
| 4 |
>> I think according to our philsophy and social contract we should |
| 5 |
>> make people aware of free software and because of that also change |
| 6 |
>> the default to: |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
>> ACCEPT_LICENSE="@FREE" |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Thanks for bringing this up. I wanted to suggest this myself soon, |
| 11 |
but I've still two blockers for it on my to-do list. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
The first blocker is the cleanup of the "as-is" license that is not |
| 14 |
quite complete. We're down from originally 700 packages to about 100 |
| 15 |
that are either difficult to fix or whose maintainers don't care. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
> The problem with this approach is that while the license might |
| 18 |
> qualify as "free", the software itself might not. This was already |
| 19 |
> pointed out by someone else in this thread. So we would block some |
| 20 |
> but not all non-free software. Software that is under non-copyleft |
| 21 |
> free license (BSD, MIT, X11, Apache-2.0, ...) could still be |
| 22 |
> distributed as sourceless binaries. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
This is the second problem. I come back to my earlier suggestion [1]: |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
| We could easily solve this by adding a "no-source-code" tag to such |
| 27 |
| packages. It would be included in the @BINARY-REDISTRIBUTABLE |
| 28 |
| license group, but not in @FREE. So such packages would be excluded |
| 29 |
| for users with ACCEPT_LICENSE="-* @FREE". |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Ulrich |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
[1] http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/82536 |
Archives