Gentoo Archives: gentoo-project

From: hasufell <hasufell@g.o>
To: gentoo-project@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Re: changing the default of ACCEPT_LICENSE in portage
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 20:51:02
Message-Id: 51F18FAC.7020207@gentoo.org
In Reply to: [gentoo-project] Re: changing the default of ACCEPT_LICENSE in portage by "Steven J. Long"
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.

Replies

Subject Author
[gentoo-project] Re: Re: changing the default of ACCEPT_LICENSE in portage "Steven J. Long" <slong@××××××××××××××××××.uk>