| 1 |
Kristian Fiskerstrand schrieb: |
| 2 |
> In summary the question is whether non-free licenses should be accepted |
| 3 |
> by default in Gentoo. today only licenses requiring EULA are not |
| 4 |
> accepted by default. So this is a good opportunity to discuss whether we |
| 5 |
> should deviate substantially from other distros like Debian. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
Which ones are the "other distros" besides Debian? |
| 8 |
Fedora/openSUSE/Ubuntu/etc. all ship proprietary parts in default repositories. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
> My personal opinion is we should have a default accepting FSF and OSI |
| 11 |
> approved free/libre licenses and require acceptance for anything else |
| 12 |
> though package.license / ACCEPT_LICENSE. Since we have this model |
| 13 |
> already we don't need a separate repository like debian does for its |
| 14 |
> binary packages, so any change has relatively minor impact on our users |
| 15 |
> as long as it is presented properly and with a proper timeline. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
No, the impact is considerable. As I pointed out in the previous |
| 18 |
discussion[1], it will require a deblobbed kernel among other things, a |
| 19 |
different approach to handling sourceless binaries under a free license (ulm |
| 20 |
suggested a no-source-code tag), and no small effort in educating users. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
That said, I'm all for it. Gentoo should make users acknowledge when they |
| 23 |
install proprietary software. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Best regards, |
| 28 |
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
[1] |
| 32 |
https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/message/d2196de6a6c8285bfa9c1b789ef88dae |
Archives