| 1 |
hasufell schrieb: |
| 2 |
> I think according to our philsophy and social contract we should |
| 3 |
> make people aware of free software and because of that also change |
| 4 |
> the default to: |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> ACCEPT_LICENSE="@FREE" |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
The problem with this approach is that while the license might qualify |
| 9 |
as "free", the software itself might not. This was already pointed out |
| 10 |
by someone else in this thread. So we would block some but not all |
| 11 |
non-free software. Software that is under non-copyleft free license |
| 12 |
(BSD, MIT, X11, Apache-2.0, ...) could still be distributed as |
| 13 |
sourceless binaries. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Also this would affect the kernel sources when deblobbing is disabled. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
I am not against this move, but this will require a lot of effort in |
| 18 |
educating users about the consequences. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Best regards, |
| 22 |
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn |
Archives