1 |
On 20:31 Thu 25 Jul , hasufell wrote: |
2 |
> Gentoo has a social contract [1] which makes a lot of noise about free |
3 |
> software. However our default settings allow to use almost any kind of |
4 |
> non-free license such as "all-rights-reserved". |
5 |
> |
6 |
> While I see nothing wrong with gentoo providing proprietary stuff (and |
7 |
> I have created a lot of such games ebuilds), I think according to our |
8 |
> philsophy and social contract we should make people aware of free |
9 |
> software and because of that also change the default to: |
10 |
> |
11 |
> ACCEPT_LICENSE="@FREE" |
12 |
> |
13 |
> This is only about the _default_. We will have to change the handbook |
14 |
> at "1.d. Licenses" [2] and might also make a news item. |
15 |
|
16 |
Gentoo has been and should remain a pragmatic distribution rather than |
17 |
promoting a specific licensing philosophy to our users. We've always |
18 |
focused on providing *reasonable* rather than *restrictive* or *minimal* |
19 |
defaults, in the interest of keeping the barrier to entry lower and |
20 |
lessening the effort required to set up a functional Gentoo |
21 |
installation. |
22 |
|
23 |
I don't see any conflict between requiring that our system packages be |
24 |
free software and providing the pragmatic experience that we also |
25 |
promise to our users in our philosophy: |
26 |
|
27 |
"Put another way, the Gentoo philosophy is to create better tools. When a |
28 |
tool is doing its job perfectly, you might not even be very aware of its |
29 |
presence, because it does not interfere and make its presence known, nor |
30 |
does it force you to interact with it when you don't want it to. The |
31 |
tool serves the user rather than the user serving the tool." |
32 |
|
33 |
-- |
34 |
Thanks, |
35 |
Donnie |
36 |
|
37 |
Donnie Berkholz |
38 |
Council Member / Sr. Developer, Gentoo Linux <http://dberkholz.com> |
39 |
Analyst, RedMonk <http://redmonk.com/dberkholz/> |