On 04/04/16 20:01, Ali Abdul Ghani wrote: >> I'm confused about why this is necessary. Why not check the license of a >> package before installing it? A programmer should be able to do this. > Since we have distros > is endorsed by the FSF, mere warning is not enough. > One of the criteria for keeping the endorsed status is that > FSF-endorsed distros: > > "...must not steer users towards obtaining any nonfree information for > practical use, or encourage them to do so. The system should have no > repositories > for nonfree software and no specific recipes for installation of > particular nonfree programs. Nor should the distribution refer to > third-party repositories > that are not committed to only including free software; even if they > only have free software today, that may not be true tomorrow. Programs > in the system > should not suggest installing nonfree plugins, documentation, and so on." > > > have fun and be free > ali miracle > > 2016-04-04 14:47 جرينتش-07:00, IngeGNUe <ingeg...@riseup.net>: >> On 04/03/16 18:37, Felipe Sanches wrote: >>> I've been concerned for a while about this as well. >>> Any idea if anyone has ever tried dealing with this problem already? >>> >>> On Sun, Apr 3, 2016 at 7:34 PM, Ali Abdul Ghani <blade.vp2...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>>> Most of us use Package manager to install Programs >>>> in fully free gnu/linux distributions all the repositorys is free >>>> software >>>> But wait >>>> this seme not tru >>>> >>>> A lot of programming languages have own Package Manager >>>> Examples of those packages managers: npm (CSS/JavaScript), Bower >>>> (Web), pip (Python), Ruby Gems (Ruby), >>>> CPAN (Perl), Cargo (Rust), ... >>>> >>>> These packages rely on special Repositorys >>>> Nearly all of those Repositorys accept non-free licenses. At least, >>>> most of those Repositorys show the license of the program, but it >>>> doesn't >>>> even warn you when installing a non-free package. >>>> >>>> >>>> and The big problem is python and Perl is part from >>>> fully free gnu/linux distributions >>>> I think this mene the distributions is not fully free gnu/linux >>>> distributions >>>> >>>> There are 2 solutions came in my head >>>> 1- remove this Package Manager from this programming languages from >>>> free gnu/linux distributions >>>> >>>> in fact If we're removing those package managers, it's going to make >>>> installing some software much harder. >>>> 2. Create a separate repository. In this case, we hnede manpower to >>>> mirror all the free packages and remove only the non-free ones, else >>>> we will >>>> land in a situation similar to 1. we will also need a pretty Web >>>> interface in order to attract users. >>>> >>>> have fun and be free >>>> ali miracle >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Emacs is the ground. We run around and act silly on top of it, and >>>> when we die, may our remnants grace its ongoing incrementation. >>>> >>> >> I'm confused about why this is necessary. Why not check the license of a >> package before installing it? A programmer should be able to do this. >> >> Tell me if I am wrong? >> >> If you feel like that's a good use of your time, go for it... >> >> > > Hello Ali,
What I mean by that is not even a warning. A programmer is sophisticated enough of a user to look at the license of a package if she cares enough about the issue. Therefore, i find it dubious what value it adds to bother with this. Besides that, there should be a limit to what distros are responsible for; I believe that the responsibility of a distro is to distribute libre packages; if those libre packages then download non-libre packages distributed by somebody else, then the distro should not be responsible for that. I think that's the only sane option because otherwise y'all gettin way too meta. IMHO