On Sat, 2003-11-22 at 05:28, Sven Vermeulen wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 22, 2003 at 01:06:05AM -0600, Matthew Kennedy wrote:
> > Seriously though, it is my impression that you may be surprised how
> > many folks care that their box uses free software only.  You might
> > want to check the Debian news out of late.  There's a proposal to do
> > away with(?) non-free in their distro (ie. clause 5. in their social
> > contract would be removed).
> > 
> > I suppose I am dismayed that we are failing to promote free software
> > over proprietary software.
> 
> It is not Gentoo's goal to become a free-software only distribution. It is
> important that we, as metadistribution, give the users the choice to choose
> for "free-software only" if they want. I'm sure we can all agree on this
> ability to choose.
> 
> So yes, to use your example, it is important that gamers don't quit Gentoo
> because of a decision we force upon them, instead of having them decide
> theirselves.
> 
> Implementing an ACCEPT_LICENSES variable is a very important proposal. The
> question is what we would use "per default". Do we only accept free (as in
> speech) licenses per default, and have the user choose the others
> individually, or accept free (as in beer) licenses per default, having the
> user restrict/extend the amount of licenses he wishes?
> 
> I can certainly agree if we go for the former (from a GNU/OSI perspective),
> but also if the latter is chosen (from a userfriendly perspective). 

I would also agree with either.  If we went the OSI way, though, we
should make it easy for the user to add licenses.  I believe that logic
would need to be added to portage to automatically extend
ACCEPT_LICENSES for any licenses which were interactively accepted
during an emerge.
-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Developer, Gentoo Linux
Games Team

Is your power animal a penguin?