Richard Freeman wrote: > Mounir Lamouri wrote: >> It looks like some licenses need acceptance. > I prefer the wording: some software vendors claim that their licenses > must be accepted to use the software. I'm not aware of any law which > requires a license to use software - at least not inside the USA (your > jurisdiction may vary). I'm not a lawyer so I can't say for sure some software _need_ explicit license acceptance to be used. However, I'm quite sure using a software means accept the license. Someone experienced in this area is welcome for clarifications.
> A license is certainly required to distribute software - hence > RESTRICT="mirror" or USE="bindist". Users typically do not distribute > software, therefore users typically do not need a license to use it. I think this vision is too simple. Some licenses add rules and rights users should know. Some applications can use your personal data (like picasa) or forbid you to try to do reverse engineering even if authorized in your country (can't remember name). So, even if most users don't care, we should at least help them know. Because, at the moment, I can install something with a license saying "i can use personal data you put in this app" without even have a clue. > Frankly, I'd like to see ACCEPT_LICENSE=* be the default. If some are > concerned about the legal issues then have the default be > ACCEPT_LICENSE = * -...@eula and let users trim it down to "*" on their > own. Portage should not set arbitrary restrictions on preventing > accepting *. > > I'd definitely like the default to be that packages are accepted > unless a dev somehow indicates otherwise. The overwhelming majority > of packages out there do not have EULA issues. > > Keep in mind that licensing is a legal issue, and legal issues are > determined by the law, and the law is determined by where you live. > If a user lives in a country that says you can sell Windows CD-Rs at a > Lemonade stand, it isn't the job of Gentoo to step in and tell them > otherwise. We want to give users the tools they need to help stay > compliant with the laws that govern them - we don't want to assume the > responsibility for their compliance. Sure, licensing is somewhat linked with where you live but I don't think that's helping your point. By auto-enabling only a set of licenses we can be sure at 99% users will be safe. By auto-enabling everything, we can put our users in an illegal situation where he is living. Better to be a little bit restrictive than too comprehensive. I think except for flash plugin and graphic drivers our users will not be too annoyed by a restrictive ACCEPT_LICENSE. There is only a few app widely use on GNU/Linux which aren't free. I can only see Skype. And maybe it will help users to think about alternatives before using proprietary software. Mounir
