| 1 |
On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 11:54 AM Thomas Deutschmann <whissi@g.o> |
| 2 |
wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On 2019-01-28 23:27, Matt Turner wrote: |
| 5 |
> > It's very common to need firmware to use wired or wireless networking. |
| 6 |
> > I would not want to ship installation media without requisite |
| 7 |
> > firmware. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> I don't think that sys-kernel/linux-firmware would be affected. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> But if it would be affected, where's the problem? Just create |
| 12 |
> /etc/portage/package.license for that media. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> Again, the main motion is for users starting with a fresh stage3 image. |
| 15 |
> Gentoo is about choices. So the only thing which will actually change is |
| 16 |
> an additional prompt because we are raising awareness... |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
A few questions here: |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
1) Do the users not currently have a choice today? (e.g. do we need to |
| 22 |
populate the @nonfree license set?) |
| 23 |
2) Are the users aware of the choice? I suspect this feels closer to your |
| 24 |
intent. While its perhaps technically possible to make an informed |
| 25 |
decisions on licensing we do not force users to make a choice, and so many |
| 26 |
accept the default. |
| 27 |
3) Some Gentoo community members find the existing default problematic |
| 28 |
because it does includes nonfree software, and think Gentoo should ship |
| 29 |
with only free software by default. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
I think if there isn't a @free-only (or -@nonfree) item we should do the |
| 32 |
work to make that possible (so ensure 1 is implemented.) |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
I think if we wanted to inform users about choices[0], we could set the |
| 35 |
default to "-*" and give users a set of choices with descriptions about |
| 36 |
each. This would require users to make an informed licensing choice by |
| 37 |
default; because the lack of a choice would prevent an install. It would do |
| 38 |
what you wrote though, and raise awareness about licensing in Gentoo (and |
| 39 |
OSS in general.) |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
I personally am against making the default @free-only (or FSF or OSI |
| 42 |
approved, or whatever moniker you want to assign) but I'm obviously one of |
| 43 |
many and I'm sure there are developers who support this idea (see more |
| 44 |
below.) |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
-A |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
[0] I assert that users have a choice today (because they can change the |
| 49 |
variable) and if we made it default to @free-software users would still |
| 50 |
have a choice, and the awareness benefit is actually quite limited. I don't |
| 51 |
think having a default 'enables choice' at all, it just pushes a different |
| 52 |
ideology (whatever ideology is the default, because most users accept and |
| 53 |
use that.) Pushing an ideology is fine, but I would rather be up front |
| 54 |
about such things, vs trying to write a narrative that somehow making the |
| 55 |
default be "@free-software" somehow gives users more choices; because |
| 56 |
assuming the license group exists today, we are not adding choices at all. |
| 57 |
I think a @free default fits right into the Gentoo Social Contract and |
| 58 |
while I oppose it on a personal basis (because I think the result harms |
| 59 |
users) I do support it on an organizational basis. |
| 60 |
|
| 61 |
|
| 62 |
> |
| 63 |
> -- |
| 64 |
> Regards, |
| 65 |
> Thomas Deutschmann / Gentoo Linux Developer |
| 66 |
> C4DD 695F A713 8F24 2AA1 5638 5849 7EE5 1D5D 74A5 |
| 67 |
> |
| 68 |
> |
Archives