1 |
On 07/25/2013 10:29 PM, Steven J. Long wrote: |
2 |
> hasufell wrote: |
3 |
>> Matthew Thode wrote: |
4 |
>>> hasufell wrote: |
5 |
>>>> Gentoo has a social contract [1] which makes a lot of noise about |
6 |
>>>> free software. However our default settings allow to use almost |
7 |
>>>> any kind of non-free license such as "all-rights-reserved". |
8 |
>>>> |
9 |
>>>> While I see nothing wrong with gentoo providing proprietary stuff |
10 |
>>>> (and I have created a lot of such games ebuilds), I think |
11 |
>>>> according to our philsophy and social contract we should make |
12 |
>>>> people aware of free software and because of that also change the |
13 |
>>>> default to: |
14 |
>>>> |
15 |
>>>> ACCEPT_LICENSE="@FREE" |
16 |
>>>> |
17 |
>>>> This is only about the _default_. We will have to change the |
18 |
>>>> handbook at "1.d. Licenses" [2] and might also make a news item. |
19 |
>>>> |
20 |
>>> This is what I thought the default license group already was, I'm |
21 |
>>> all for it :D |
22 |
>> |
23 |
>> The default is currently: |
24 |
>> |
25 |
>> ACCEPT_LICENSE:"* -@EULA" |
26 |
>> |
27 |
>> in /usr/share/portage/config/make.globals |
28 |
> |
29 |
> This is reasonable, but can we have the above old-default commented out in make.conf, |
30 |
> above the new setting? That way things are transparent, and users who want to switch |
31 |
> to using non-free can do so easily without the EULA stuff being pulled in, aiui it |
32 |
> would be if users simply put "*" in there. |
33 |
> |
34 |
|
35 |
Sure. |
36 |
|
37 |
> After all, as you yourself wrote about: |
38 |
>> adding a line such as: ACCEPT_LICENSE="*" |
39 |
> ..users are likely to reach for that by default, too, when they shouldn't accept |
40 |
> @EULA generically, but via package.license. |
41 |
> |
42 |
> Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: |
43 |
>> Also this would affect the kernel sources when deblobbing is disabled. |
44 |
>> |
45 |
>> I am not against this move, but this will require a lot of effort in |
46 |
>> educating users about the consequences. |
47 |
|
48 |
I don't think it is that big. We have changed more critical defaults in |
49 |
the past. A news item will suffice. |
50 |
|
51 |
> |
52 |
> Presumably stages have been built, and machines installed using just @FREE? I'd just |
53 |
> like assurance that these "consequences" are known not to affect a standard desktop |
54 |
> install, or that this will be tested thoroughly before the switch, in which case it |
55 |
> is not, one would hope, imminent. |
56 |
> |
57 |
|
58 |
Of course we will test that and we will not just make it in silent, so |
59 |
people don't get surprised when trying to update their production machines. |