| 1 |
On 2019-01-29 18:53, Alec Warner wrote: |
| 2 |
> 1) Do the users not currently have a choice today? (e.g. do we need |
| 3 |
> to populate the @nonfree license set?) |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
Yes and no :-) |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
In theory, users currently have a choice. However we set |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
> ACCEPT_LICENSE="* -@EULA" |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
by default. This means: |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
The package manager will accept _any_ license except licenses within |
| 14 |
EULA license group. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
> 2) Are the users aware of the choice? I suspect this feels closer to |
| 18 |
> your intent. While its perhaps technically possible to make an |
| 19 |
> informed decisions on licensing we do not force users to make a |
| 20 |
> choice, and so many accept the default. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Nobody can answer that question for sure. We can only take Brian's mail |
| 23 |
as data point that at least new users aren't aware. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Most users will notice once they have to install a package which is |
| 26 |
using an EULA. Famous package was www-plugins/adobe-flash or drivers. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
> 3) Some Gentoo community members find the existing default |
| 30 |
> problematic because it does includes nonfree software, and think |
| 31 |
> Gentoo should ship with only free software by default. |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> I think if there isn't a @free-only (or -@nonfree) item we should do |
| 34 |
> the work to make that possible (so ensure 1 is implemented.) |
| 35 |
Stop. Maybe we need to split this discussion: |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
SSPL is something new from my P.O.V. I am not aware of any other license |
| 38 |
which has special requirements when you decide to run the licensed |
| 39 |
software for someone else (or like you call it nowadays, "as a service"). |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
So even if SSPL will get OSI approval (and MonogDB upstream expects |
| 42 |
approval according to their FAQ) I am not sure if package manager should |
| 43 |
merge such a software without further prompts. |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
My understanding is that some other developers want to go one step |
| 47 |
further and change |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
> ACCEPT_LICENSE="* -@EULA" |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
into |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
> ACCEPT_LICENSE="@FREE" |
| 54 |
|
| 55 |
I am not (yet) part of this motion. |
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
But keep in mind: If this motion will end up with |
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
> ACCEPT_LICENSE="@FREE" |
| 60 |
|
| 61 |
we will get back to this topic in case OSI will approve SSPL in which |
| 62 |
case we would have to add SSPL to OSI-APPROVED which is part of FREE |
| 63 |
group... |
| 64 |
|
| 65 |
|
| 66 |
-- |
| 67 |
Regards, |
| 68 |
Thomas Deutschmann / Gentoo Linux Developer |
| 69 |
C4DD 695F A713 8F24 2AA1 5638 5849 7EE5 1D5D 74A5 |
Archives