[gentoo-dev] Gentoo internal structure

[gentoo-dev] Gentoo internal structure

[Sergey V. Spiridonov]

Hi,

1. Is Gentoo commercial or non-commercial organization?
2. Is there Gentoo project leader, like in Debian? How is it elected?
3. How key decisions are done? Is there voting system?
4. Can Gentoo maintainers correct the Social Contract?

Thanks in advance.
-- 
Best regards, Sergey Spiridonov



--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo internal structure

[Paul de Vrieze]

[-- Attachment #1: signed data --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 1180 bytes --]

On Tuesday 18 November 2003 20:01, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 1. Is Gentoo commercial or non-commercial organization?

Gentoo is currently officially a for-profit organisation. However we are 
working on a transition into a not-for-profit organization.

> 2. Is there Gentoo project leader, like in Debian? How is it elected?
Yes, it is Daniel Robins. He started the project, and as he will probably be 
around for some while we have as yet no procedure to elect the leader

> 3. How key decisions are done? Is there voting system?
Key decisions are made by the management team. A formal voting system is being 
developed, but currently we work with consensus vote. Note that this is 
consensus of the management team. In this Daniel has some extra edge as the 
project leader although it is not formal.

> 4. Can Gentoo maintainers correct the Social Contract?
If there are errors in the contract I guess it can be corrected. However we 
will not change the contract lightly. Please indicate which errors you think 
are in the contract.

Paul

-- 
Paul de Vrieze
Gentoo Developer
Mail: pauldv@gentoo.org
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net

[-- Attachment #2: signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: Gentoo internal structure

[Sergey V. Spiridonov]

Paul de Vrieze wrote:
>>1. Is Gentoo commercial or non-commercial organization?
> 
> Gentoo is currently officially a for-profit organisation. However we are 

Thanks a lot for answering. I got some already in gentoo-user.
--
Best regards, Sergey Spiridonov



--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo internal structure

[Jason Stubbs]

Hello all,

This question was posted to -user as well and has turned into a huge 
discussion. It seems that the key concern of the original poster is the free 
vs non-free bit.

Several weeks (months?) ago there was a discussion of licenses with regard to 
id's software. In that, I suggested that a user need to accept all licenses 
before being able to install software. That was disregarded due to the fact 
that there are 100s (297) licenses in portage.

However, users being forced to accept a license was implemented for the 
specific case of id's software. I again propose that this be made the default 
for all ebuilds (through portage rather than each ebuild). To counter the 
massive amount of licenses, I suggest having reasonable defaults for 
ACCEPT_LICENSES is make.defaults.

The reason for this is that the free vs non-free questioning comes up on -user 
every month or two. Each time, the answer is invariably "you wont find what 
you're looking for here". I would prefer to be able to say, "sure, Gentoo can 
do that". And it seems if the above were implemented it would be as easy as 
ACCEPT_LICENSES="-* GPL-1 GPL-2 LGPL-2 LGPL-2.1". (I'm not so familiar with 
which licenses but I'm sure someone that cares would be).

As a added benefit, using something similar to the above would ensure that a 
stage3 tarball would never be 'polluted'. I'm sure there would be other 
benefits, too.

Regards,
Jason

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo internal structure

[Brett I. Holcomb]

To be honest Jason, I think we need to leave it as is.  Gentoo is a distro 
that allows us to get work done and not get into the "if you use non-free 
software you have betrayed humanity" argument.  If we're not careful we will 
end up the same as Debian.  The person raising the question is a zealot who 
will accept nothing less then all free software and no non-free.  That was 
explained many times and he, like all of us have a choice - use a distro that 
fits whatever philosophy you have.   Gentoo does not have the Debian 
philosophy so for people who want that they can use Debian or another 
equivalent.  For those of us who just want to do a job and if non-free is the 
best then we'll use  the non-free/commerical stuff  and stick with Gentoo.

Why should all of us who agree with the Gentoo philosopy have to add a bunch 
of licenses stuff  to make.conf or wherever just to satisfy people who would 
be happier with Debian type distros anyway.  We can get in a situation like 
those who try to be politically correct - they are constantly modifying their 
school, program, whatever to fit the whims of the latest politically correct 
mandate.  Gentoo's social contract is available to read - if we feel so 
strongly that we can't agree to then we can go to another distro.

The id licensing is, to me, an odd case.  That's the only package it's been 
an issue.  VMware and the others seem happy to let us have it in portage - 
probably because they are time limited demos.

Don't mess with a good setup - it isn't broken so don't fix it <G>.




On Thursday 20 November 2003 20:50, you wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> This question was posted to -user as well and has turned into a huge
> discussion. It seems that the key concern of the original poster is the
> free vs non-free bit.
>
> Several weeks (months?) ago there was a discussion of licenses with regard
> to id's software. In that, I suggested that a user need to accept all
> licenses before being able to install software. That was disregarded due to
> the fact that there are 100s (297) licenses in portage.
>
> However, users being forced to accept a license was implemented for the
> specific case of id's software. I again propose that this be made the
> default for all ebuilds (through portage rather than each ebuild). To
> counter the massive amount of licenses, I suggest having reasonable
> defaults for ACCEPT_LICENSES is make.defaults.
>
> The reason for this is that the free vs non-free questioning comes up on
> -user every month or two. Each time, the answer is invariably "you wont
> find what you're looking for here". I would prefer to be able to say,
> "sure, Gentoo can do that". And it seems if the above were implemented it
> would be as easy as ACCEPT_LICENSES="-* GPL-1 GPL-2 LGPL-2 LGPL-2.1". (I'm
> not so familiar with which licenses but I'm sure someone that cares would
> be).
>
> As a added benefit, using something similar to the above would ensure that
> a stage3 tarball would never be 'polluted'. I'm sure there would be other
> benefits, too.
>
> Regards,
> Jason

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo internal structure

[Jason Stubbs]

On Friday 21 November 2003 11:34, Brett I. Holcomb wrote:
> Why should all of us who agree with the Gentoo philosopy have to add a
> bunch of licenses stuff  to make.conf or wherever just to satisfy people

I specifically said make.defaults which is something an end-user never needs 
to touch.

Jason

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo internal structure

[Aron Griffis]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1843 bytes --]

Hi Brett,

Brett I. Holcomb wrote:	[Thu Nov 20 2003, 09:34:36PM EST]
> Gentoo is a distro that allows us to get work done and not get into
> the "if you use non-free software you have betrayed humanity"
> argument.  ... The person raising the question is a zealot who will
> accept nothing less then all free software and no non-free.  That was
> explained many times and he, like all of us have a choice - use a
> distro that fits whatever philosophy you have.

Unfortunately you have missed the point of Gentoo.  The point of Gentoo
is to give choice to the users.  The concept of Gentoo as a
metadistribution is that Gentoo can be whatever distribution you want it
to be.  Granted, there are bounds since we're not going to implement
Gentoo with rpms, but nonetheless, *this* is the point of Gentoo: Let
the user decide.  See http://www.gentoo.org/main/en/philosophy.xml 

In this case, what this means is that we need to implement
ACCEPT_LICENSES in a clean, unobtrusive way with reasonable defaults so
that (1) it doesn't get in your way, (2) the free software zealot can
run Gentoo with pride.

As Jason mentioned, putting reasonable defaults into make.defaults
accomplishes #1.  The default might even be ACCEPT_LICENSES='*', in
which case modification in make.conf would need to be something like
ACCEPT_LICENSES='-* GPL-1 GPL-2' (which then accomplishes #2)

I'm all in favor of this change.  So far we've been accumulating
licenses in /usr/portage/licenses without a final goal for that
directory.  This change would finally make use of that directory and
supply something that some of our users want, without making a headache
for the rest of us.

Aron

-- 
Aron Griffis
Gentoo Linux Developer (alpha / ia64 / ruby / vim)
Key fingerprint = E3B6 8734 C2D6 B5E5 AE76  FB3A 26B1 C5E3 2010 4EB0


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo internal structure

[Sven Vermeulen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1087 bytes --]

On Thu, Nov 20, 2003 at 10:13:32PM -0500, Aron Griffis wrote:
> As Jason mentioned, putting reasonable defaults into make.defaults
> accomplishes #1.  The default might even be ACCEPT_LICENSES='*', in
> which case modification in make.conf would need to be something like
> ACCEPT_LICENSES='-* GPL-1 GPL-2' (which then accomplishes #2)

I might be just awake, but this idea sparkles in my eyes with a "wow"
subtitle. It is a great idea, and even though it has some rough edges (for
instance we probably shouldn't accept all licenses per default -- you never
know what the future might bring) and can be extended (kinda virtual-like,
such as ACCEPT_LICENSES="freelicenses" which would embody all known free
licenses) it is certainly something to consider.

Is this the first time this popped up? If not, is there any progress into
creating a draft patch? Or a GLEP?

Wkr,
	Sven Vermeulen


-- 
 ^__^   And Larry saw that it was Good.
 (oo)                                      Sven Vermeulen
 (__)   http://www.gentoo.org              Gentoo Documentation Project

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo internal structure

[donnie berkholz]

Sven Vermeulen <swift@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 20, 2003 at 10:13:32PM -0500, Aron Griffis wrote:
>> As Jason mentioned, putting reasonable defaults into make.defaults
>> accomplishes #1.  The default might even be ACCEPT_LICENSES='*', in
>> which case modification in make.conf would need to be something like
>> ACCEPT_LICENSES='-* GPL-1 GPL-2' (which then accomplishes #2)
>
> I might be just awake, but this idea sparkles in my eyes with a "wow"
> subtitle. It is a great idea, and even though it has some rough edges
> (for instance we probably shouldn't accept all licenses per default --
> you never know what the future might bring) and can be extended (kinda
> virtual-like, such as ACCEPT_LICENSES="freelicenses" which would embody
> all known free licenses) it is certainly something to consider.
>
> Is this the first time this popped up? If not, is there any progress
> into creating a draft patch? Or a GLEP?

I think we should accept all the licenses by default except the ones for
which the ACCEPT_LICENSE variable originally existed (the id games ones),
since users must be forced to read and agree to those. This would keep the
change seamless for the user unless said user wishes to change things.



--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo internal structure

[Erik Swanson]

On Fri, 2003-11-21 at 02:33, donnie berkholz wrote:
> I think we should accept all the licenses by default except the ones for
> which the ACCEPT_LICENSE variable originally existed (the id games ones),
> since users must be forced to read and agree to those. This would keep the
> change seamless for the user unless said user wishes to change things.

As a user, I'd prefer if only OSI-approved licenses were accepted by
default. This also seems like it'd be most in keeping with the Gentoo
Social Contract.

-- 
Erik Swanson <gentoo-dev@erik.swanson.name>


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo internal structure

[William Kenworthy]

as a user I'd object to that.  I think that accept all is the best
default as that would seem to be the most useful and popular path. 
Otherwise, you may as well install debian if you are going to force
restrictions on people out of the box.

Keep in mind that gentoo is about choice, and not forcing people to go
down a minority path, but also to allow people to choose that path if
they want to.

On Fri, 2003-11-21 at 18:54, Erik Swanson wrote:


> As a user, I'd prefer if only OSI-approved licenses were accepted by
> default. This also seems like it'd be most in keeping with the Gentoo
> Social Contract.
-- 
William Kenworthy <billk@iinet.net.au>


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo internal structure

[Jason Stubbs]

On Friday 21 November 2003 21:34, William Kenworthy wrote:
> as a user I'd object to that.  I think that accept all is the best
> default as that would seem to be the most useful and popular path.
> Otherwise, you may as well install debian if you are going to force
> restrictions on people out of the box.
>
> Keep in mind that gentoo is about choice, and not forcing people to go
> down a minority path, but also to allow people to choose that path if
> they want to.

Agreed. If it were implemented, I'd also think that keeping the default 
portage behaviour the same as it is now to be the best path. Otherwise, too 
many "what happened?" type questions.

Jason

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo internal structure

[Matthew Kennedy]

William Kenworthy <billk@iinet.net.au> writes:

> as a user I'd object to that.  I think that accept all is the best
> default as that would seem to be the most useful and popular path. 
> Otherwise, you may as well install debian if you are going to force
> restrictions on people out of the box.

[...]

Oh come on, worry about the "defaults" once its implemented.
>
>
> --
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
>
>

-- 
Matthew Kennedy
Gentoo Linux Developer

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo internal structure

[Jon Portnoy]

On Fri, Nov 21, 2003 at 02:54:39AM -0800, Erik Swanson wrote:
> On Fri, 2003-11-21 at 02:33, donnie berkholz wrote:
> > I think we should accept all the licenses by default except the ones for
> > which the ACCEPT_LICENSE variable originally existed (the id games ones),
> > since users must be forced to read and agree to those. This would keep the
> > change seamless for the user unless said user wishes to change things.
> 
> As a user, I'd prefer if only OSI-approved licenses were accepted by
> default. This also seems like it'd be most in keeping with the Gentoo
> Social Contract.
> 

The social contract states that Gentoo Linux will never _depend_ on 
nonfree software. However, we still provide it. If we moved over to a 
Debian-esque "if you want nonfree software, you need to change settings" 
it would irritate a decently large number of people.

(And before anyone accuses me of being an anti-FSF type, my license 
plate is 'GNU')

-- 
Jon Portnoy
avenj/irc.freenode.net

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo internal structure

[Erik Swanson]

On Fri, 2003-11-21 at 09:32, Jon Portnoy wrote:
> The social contract states that Gentoo Linux will never _depend_ on 
> nonfree software. However, we still provide it. If we moved over to a 
> Debian-esque "if you want nonfree software, you need to change settings" 
> it would irritate a decently large number of people.

My suggestion of a conservative default was under the assumption that it
would be trivial to accept additional licenses. An interactive "y" after
being shown the license, for example. I agree that a more liberal
default would be in order if it required substantial effort (such as
editing make.conf) to accept additional licenses.

-- 
Erik Swanson <gentoo-dev@erik.swanson.name>


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo internal structure

[Paul de Vrieze]

[-- Attachment #1: signed data --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 951 bytes --]

On Friday 21 November 2003 19:07, Erik Swanson wrote:
> On Fri, 2003-11-21 at 09:32, Jon Portnoy wrote:
> > The social contract states that Gentoo Linux will never _depend_ on
> > nonfree software. However, we still provide it. If we moved over to a
> > Debian-esque "if you want nonfree software, you need to change settings"
> > it would irritate a decently large number of people.
>
> My suggestion of a conservative default was under the assumption that it
> would be trivial to accept additional licenses. An interactive "y" after
> being shown the license, for example. I agree that a more liberal
> default would be in order if it required substantial effort (such as
> editing make.conf) to accept additional licenses.

I don't want interactive "y"'s as in that case I cannot redirect my output to 
a logfile anymore. 

Paul

-- 
Paul de Vrieze
Gentoo Developer
Mail: pauldv@gentoo.org
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net

[-- Attachment #2: signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo internal structure

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2059 bytes --]

On Fri, 2003-11-21 at 15:15, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> On Friday 21 November 2003 19:07, Erik Swanson wrote:
> > On Fri, 2003-11-21 at 09:32, Jon Portnoy wrote:
> > > The social contract states that Gentoo Linux will never _depend_ on
> > > nonfree software. However, we still provide it. If we moved over to a
> > > Debian-esque "if you want nonfree software, you need to change settings"
> > > it would irritate a decently large number of people.
> >
> > My suggestion of a conservative default was under the assumption that it
> > would be trivial to accept additional licenses. An interactive "y" after
> > being shown the license, for example. I agree that a more liberal
> > default would be in order if it required substantial effort (such as
> > editing make.conf) to accept additional licenses.
> 
> I don't want interactive "y"'s as in that case I cannot redirect my output to 
> a logfile anymore. 

Then don't "emerge enemy-territory" or "emerge ut2003"... =[

I had considered proposing the idea of some form of flag which can be
set from within an ebuild that tells portage that the ebuild is
"interactive" and would cause portage to skip that ebuild during a merge
unless a flag (variable, etc) were specified on the command-line. 
Dependencies would be taken care of much like masked packages.  Portage
would give an error at the beginning of a merge if one of the
dependencies for something you are merging is marked as interactive.

Something like INTERACTIVE=yes in the ebuild and emerge --interactive. 
Otherwise the ebuild would be skipped (like in a emerge -u world),
preferably with some form of message displayed BEFORE the merge starts.

* Enemy Territory requires user input and will be skipped during this
emerge.  You can diable this behavior by running emerge with the
--interactive command-line option.

Then again, that could be a serious PITA to code, so feel free to ignore
me at any time.  =]

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Developer, Gentoo Linux
Games Team

Is your power animal a pengiun?

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo internal structure

[Mike Frysinger]

On Friday 21 November 2003 16:07, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Fri, 2003-11-21 at 15:15, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> > I don't want interactive "y"'s as in that case I cannot redirect my
> > output to a logfile anymore.

then accept the license ahead of time ... define ACCEPT_LICENSES in make.conf 
and be done with it

> Something like INTERACTIVE=yes in the ebuild and emerge --interactive.
> Otherwise the ebuild would be skipped (like in a emerge -u world),
> preferably with some form of message displayed BEFORE the merge starts.

overkill imo ... just define ACCEPT_LICENSES and you wont have a 
non-interactive emerge with respect to this

> * Enemy Territory requires user input and will be skipped during this
> emerge.  You can diable this behavior by running emerge with the
> --interactive command-line option.

or just prompt the user off the bat before emerging anything ... anything they 
dont accept, remove from the list of things to emerge

http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17367
-mike



--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo internal structure

[Aron Griffis]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1033 bytes --]

Vapier wrote:	[Sat Nov 22 2003, 02:41:34AM EST]
> > * Enemy Territory requires user input and will be skipped during this
> > emerge.  You can diable this behavior by running emerge with the
> > --interactive command-line option.
> 
> or just prompt the user off the bat before emerging anything ... anything they 
> dont accept, remove from the list of things to emerge
> 
> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17367

Probably easier to just cancel the emerge in that case and let them try
a new emerge command without the offending software.  Otherwise you have
to deal with the fact that you might be removing stuff from the list
that satisfies a dependency for something else, etc.

My personal preference would be simply to fail the emerge, similar to
when packages are masked.  The error message would indicate the license
missing from ACCEPT_LICENSES.

Aron

-- 
Aron Griffis
Gentoo Linux Developer (alpha / ia64 / ruby / vim)
Key fingerprint = E3B6 8734 C2D6 B5E5 AE76  FB3A 26B1 C5E3 2010 4EB0


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo internal structure

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1678 bytes --]

On Sat, 2003-11-22 at 02:41, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Friday 21 November 2003 16:07, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > On Fri, 2003-11-21 at 15:15, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> > > I don't want interactive "y"'s as in that case I cannot redirect my
> > > output to a logfile anymore.
> 
> then accept the license ahead of time ... define ACCEPT_LICENSES in make.conf 
> and be done with it
> 
> > Something like INTERACTIVE=yes in the ebuild and emerge --interactive.
> > Otherwise the ebuild would be skipped (like in a emerge -u world),
> > preferably with some form of message displayed BEFORE the merge starts.
> 
> overkill imo ... just define ACCEPT_LICENSES and you wont have a 
> non-interactive emerge with respect to this
> 
> > * Enemy Territory requires user input and will be skipped during this
> > emerge.  You can diable this behavior by running emerge with the
> > --interactive command-line option.
> 
> or just prompt the user off the bat before emerging anything ... anything they 
> dont accept, remove from the list of things to emerge
> 
> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17367

I definitely agree that this would be the best way to implement things. 
I was more or less looking for a way to do it without extending portage
too much, but honestly, I think the ACCEPT_LICENSES needs to be checked
by portage and not by the ebuilds themselves.

As for the --interactive, I was speaking more along the lines of ebuilds
such as unreal-tournament-goty and ut2003, which are more than one CD
and absolutely REQUIRE user interaction.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Developer, Gentoo Linux
Games Team

Is your power animal a penguin?

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo internal structure

[Luke-Jr]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Sunday 23 November 2003 06:04 pm, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> As for the --interactive, I was speaking more along the lines of ebuilds
> such as unreal-tournament-goty and ut2003, which are more than one CD
> and absolutely REQUIRE user interaction.
Multiple CDs do not imply user interaction. What about the users who have more 
than one CD drive or don't mind copying certain files to their distfiles?
- -- 
Luke-Jr
Developer, Gentoo Linux
http://www.gentoo.org/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD4DBQE/wPzdZl/BHdU+lYMRAkX3AJoDk23H0yeCjTiTbgH8p8xpFvNaWQCY9CmO
lktMXUCWFBFCiXScHJx4kw==
=4pCh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo internal structure

[Jeremy Maitin-Shepard]

Luke-Jr <luke-jr@gentoo.org> writes:

> On Sunday 23 November 2003 06:04 pm, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
>> As for the --interactive, I was speaking more along the lines of ebuilds
>> such as unreal-tournament-goty and ut2003, which are more than one CD
>> and absolutely REQUIRE user interaction.
> Multiple CDs do not imply user interaction. What about the users who
> have more than one CD drive or don't mind copying certain files to
> their distfiles?

While it is possible to copy the contents of, for example, the three
UT2003 CDs to a single directory, and specify this as the CD-ROM path
to the ebuild, the lack of package-specific portage configuration files
makes this process effectively interactive (since a single environment
variable is used to specify the CD-ROM path for all game-related
ebuilds).

Regardless, in this case the user could specify --interactive, knowing
that in fact he has configured everything such that it will not
actually prompt him for anything.

An ebuild marked interactive would in many ways be similar to an ebuild
currently marked nofetch.  It alerts the user that he should not
blindly attempt to emerge the package and then leave portage
unattended.

-- 
Jeremy Maitin-Shepard

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo internal structure

[Luke-Jr]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Sunday 23 November 2003 09:55 pm, Jeremy Maitin-Shepard wrote:
> While it is possible to copy the contents of, for example, the three
> UT2003 CDs to a single directory, and specify this as the CD-ROM path
> to the ebuild, the lack of package-specific portage configuration files
> makes this process effectively interactive (since a single environment
> variable is used to specify the CD-ROM path for all game-related
> ebuilds).
Why not look in distfiles for the files you need before even checking the 
variable's path?
- -- 
Luke-Jr
Developer, Gentoo Linux
http://www.gentoo.org/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/wTgrZl/BHdU+lYMRAh01AJ9iAKeplIBjfLZQc0glhkcHAWpBhwCfUjxT
KDTpZ2brHF99RlzyUppyn3Y=
=juxk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo internal structure

[Jeremy Maitin-Shepard]

Luke-Jr <luke-jr@gentoo.org> writes:

> On Sunday 23 November 2003 09:55 pm, Jeremy Maitin-Shepard wrote:
>> While it is possible to copy the contents of, for example, the three
>> UT2003 CDs to a single directory, and specify this as the CD-ROM path
>> to the ebuild, the lack of package-specific portage configuration files
>> makes this process effectively interactive (since a single environment
>> variable is used to specify the CD-ROM path for all game-related
>> ebuilds).
> Why not look in distfiles for the files you need before even checking the 
> variable's path?

UT2003, for example, requires a large number of files, in a specific
directory hierarchy, that do not have unique names.  If they were to be
put in distfiles, it would be necessary, at least, to put them in a
subdirectory of distfiles, like ut2003, and such a system is not
yet standardized.

-- 
Jeremy Maitin-Shepard

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo internal structure

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1020 bytes --]

On Sun, 2003-11-23 at 17:43, Luke-Jr wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On Sunday 23 November 2003 09:55 pm, Jeremy Maitin-Shepard wrote:
> > While it is possible to copy the contents of, for example, the three
> > UT2003 CDs to a single directory, and specify this as the CD-ROM path
> > to the ebuild, the lack of package-specific portage configuration files
> > makes this process effectively interactive (since a single environment
> > variable is used to specify the CD-ROM path for all game-related
> > ebuilds).
> Why not look in distfiles for the files you need before even checking the 
> variable's path?

The files have the same names across multiple games.  It would end up
being a maintenance nightmare.  Simply allowing portage to not install
that package during an upgrade would be a much cleaner approach IMO than
attempting to store modified data in distfiles.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Developer, Gentoo Linux
Games Team

Is your power animal a penguin?

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo internal structure

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1558 bytes --]

On Sun, 2003-11-23 at 16:55, Jeremy Maitin-Shepard wrote:
> Luke-Jr <luke-jr@gentoo.org> writes:
> 
> > On Sunday 23 November 2003 06:04 pm, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> >> As for the --interactive, I was speaking more along the lines of ebuilds
> >> such as unreal-tournament-goty and ut2003, which are more than one CD
> >> and absolutely REQUIRE user interaction.
> > Multiple CDs do not imply user interaction. What about the users who
> > have more than one CD drive or don't mind copying certain files to
> > their distfiles?
> 
> While it is possible to copy the contents of, for example, the three
> UT2003 CDs to a single directory, and specify this as the CD-ROM path
> to the ebuild, the lack of package-specific portage configuration files
> makes this process effectively interactive (since a single environment
> variable is used to specify the CD-ROM path for all game-related
> ebuilds).
> 
> Regardless, in this case the user could specify --interactive, knowing
> that in fact he has configured everything such that it will not
> actually prompt him for anything.
> 
> An ebuild marked interactive would in many ways be similar to an ebuild
> currently marked nofetch.  It alerts the user that he should not
> blindly attempt to emerge the package and then leave portage
> unattended.

You pretty much hit what I was thinking right on the head.  Thank you
for being able to put it into words much better than myself.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Developer, Gentoo Linux
Games Team

Is your power animal a penguin?

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo internal structure

[Mike Frysinger]

On Sunday 23 November 2003 13:30, Luke-Jr wrote:
> On Sunday 23 November 2003 06:04 pm, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > As for the --interactive, I was speaking more along the lines of ebuilds
> > such as unreal-tournament-goty and ut2003, which are more than one CD
> > and absolutely REQUIRE user interaction.
>
> Multiple CDs do not imply user interaction. What about the users who have
> more than one CD drive or don't mind copying certain files to their
> distfiles? --

while it's a nice idea, it wont solve the problem 100% of the time while 
switching cds will ...
not everyone has 3 cdrom drives hooked up nor does everyone have the space to 
copy the files to their harddrive first ... plus thats a big pita ...
-mike



--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo internal structure

[Mike Frysinger]

On Sunday 23 November 2003 13:30, Luke-Jr wrote:
> On Sunday 23 November 2003 06:04 pm, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > As for the --interactive, I was speaking more along the lines of ebuilds
> > such as unreal-tournament-goty and ut2003, which are more than one CD
> > and absolutely REQUIRE user interaction.
>
> Multiple CDs do not imply user interaction. What about the users who have
> more than one CD drive or don't mind copying certain files to their
> distfiles? --
> Luke-Jr
> Developer, Gentoo Linux
> http://www.gentoo.org/



--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo internal structure

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1023 bytes --]

Well, that is true.  Even in the ut2003 ebuild, there is a mechanism for
reading the files from disk rather than CD.

On Sun, 2003-11-23 at 13:30, Luke-Jr wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On Sunday 23 November 2003 06:04 pm, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > As for the --interactive, I was speaking more along the lines of ebuilds
> > such as unreal-tournament-goty and ut2003, which are more than one CD
> > and absolutely REQUIRE user interaction.
> Multiple CDs do not imply user interaction. What about the users who have more 
> than one CD drive or don't mind copying certain files to their distfiles?
> - -- 
> Luke-Jr
> Developer, Gentoo Linux
> http://www.gentoo.org/
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
> 
> iD4DBQE/wPzdZl/BHdU+lYMRAkX3AJoDk23H0yeCjTiTbgH8p8xpFvNaWQCY9CmO
> lktMXUCWFBFCiXScHJx4kw==
> =4pCh
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Developer, Gentoo Linux
Games Team

Is your power animal a penguin?

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo internal structure

[Christian Birchinger]

It might sound a bit rude but i think the defaults should be
defined that most of the time only zealots need to tweak
them. I think most users don't care about most licenses and
shouldn't need to mess with this.
Ofcourse exceptions like ID exists (I guess mostly because the
companies demand that you click "OK" on something).

But don't make the user configure licenses for djb ware etc.
It will only annoy 95% of the people. 
Let the zealots do the work and not the average user who simply
doesn't care about that licensing stuff. Especially licenses
which only have an impact on the distribution of software and
not the usage. (exceptions like ID described above).

On Fri, Nov 21, 2003 at 10:07:04AM -0800, Erik Swanson wrote:
> On Fri, 2003-11-21 at 09:32, Jon Portnoy wrote:
> > The social contract states that Gentoo Linux will never _depend_ on 
> > nonfree software. However, we still provide it. If we moved over to a 
> > Debian-esque "if you want nonfree software, you need to change settings" 
> > it would irritate a decently large number of people.
> 
> My suggestion of a conservative default was under the assumption that it
> would be trivial to accept additional licenses. An interactive "y" after
> being shown the license, for example. I agree that a more liberal
> default would be in order if it required substantial effort (such as
> editing make.conf) to accept additional licenses.
> 
> -- 
> Erik Swanson <gentoo-dev@erik.swanson.name>
> 
> 
> --
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo internal structure

[Bob Miller]

Christian Birchinger wrote:

> It might sound a bit rude but i think the defaults should be
> defined that most of the time only zealots need to tweak
> them. I think most users don't care about most licenses and
> shouldn't need to mess with this.

I've seen several people express this attitude, and I like it a lot.

Let me tell you about my retirement plan.  I'm going to write a game,
Linux-only, make it good enough that a few hundred of you will emerge
it and try it out.  Then I'll change the license agreement so that
next time you emerge the game you'll owe me $1million US.  Since
you all have ACCEPT_LICENSES="*" as the default, you'll all accept my
new license, I'll take you all to court (after subpoenaing apache logs
from all the mirrors so I know who you are, and subpoenaing your
make.conf and make.globals to prove you accepted the license), and sue
you for my license fee.  If I can recover 1% of what you'll all owe
me, I'll be happy enough.

Okay, that's NOT REALLY my plan.  I'm at least slightly ethical. (-:
But it illustrates why you don't under any circumstances want
ACCEPT_LICENSES="*", either as the default or as an option.  Accepting
a license has consequences, and those consequences can hurt you.*  I'd
recommend against letting the parser recognize a wildcard for licenses
-- there's just too much danger for people who don't know any better
to hurt themselves.

That's my opinion.  It's worth what you paid for it.


* For a real life example that's somewhat less heinous, consider the
  BitKeeper license.
-- 
Bob Miller                              K<bob>
kbobsoft software consulting
http://kbobsoft.com                     kbob@jogger-egg.com

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo internal structure

[Dewet Diener]

On Wednesday 26 November 2003 19:18, Bob Miller wrote:
> But it illustrates why you don't under any circumstances want
> ACCEPT_LICENSES="*", either as the default or as an option.  Accepting
> a license has consequences, and those consequences can hurt you.*  I'd
> recommend against letting the parser recognize a wildcard for licenses
> -- there's just too much danger for people who don't know any better
> to hurt themselves.

While I see your point and agree to some extent with what you're saying, there 
are cases where I can imagine it needed.  Considering the dubious legal 
stance of shrink-wrap licences, and combining that with the fact that I'm not 
living in the States or a US citizen, makes me rather less concerned about 
this issue.

If the wildcarding of licences aren't allowed, at least put a switch in 
make.conf to disable the licence code altogether.  Otherwise I'll just patch 
it out of portage on my machines.

But I guess with the modular approach of next-gen portage, that will be 
elementary.

Dewet

-- 
Dewet Diener   <gentoo@dewet.org>   http://dewet.org
Professional Student, avid Gentoo user :)
Stellenbosch, South Africa (33<C2><BA> 55" 58.80'S  18<C2><BA> 51" 00.00'E)

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo internal structure

[Christian Birchinger]

I think i also wrote something about the difference between
liceses which restrict using and those which restrict
distribution.

On Wed, Nov 26, 2003 at 09:18:35AM -0800, Bob Miller wrote:
> Christian Birchinger wrote:
> 
> > It might sound a bit rude but i think the defaults should be
> > defined that most of the time only zealots need to tweak
> > them. I think most users don't care about most licenses and
> > shouldn't need to mess with this.
> 
> I've seen several people express this attitude, and I like it a lot.
> 
> Let me tell you about my retirement plan.  I'm going to write a game,
> Linux-only, make it good enough that a few hundred of you will emerge
> it and try it out.  Then I'll change the license agreement so that
> next time you emerge the game you'll owe me $1million US.  Since
> you all have ACCEPT_LICENSES="*" as the default, you'll all accept my
> new license, I'll take you all to court (after subpoenaing apache logs
> from all the mirrors so I know who you are, and subpoenaing your
> make.conf and make.globals to prove you accepted the license), and sue
> you for my license fee.  If I can recover 1% of what you'll all owe
> me, I'll be happy enough.
> 
> Okay, that's NOT REALLY my plan.  I'm at least slightly ethical. (-:
> But it illustrates why you don't under any circumstances want
> ACCEPT_LICENSES="*", either as the default or as an option.  Accepting
> a license has consequences, and those consequences can hurt you.*  I'd
> recommend against letting the parser recognize a wildcard for licenses
> -- there's just too much danger for people who don't know any better
> to hurt themselves.
> 
> That's my opinion.  It's worth what you paid for it.

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo internal structure

[Jason Rhinelander]

Your retirement demonstration brings up a good point.  Unless 
specifically indicated, a license change is neither retroactive nor 
proactive; if the user agreed to the original license, they are under 
the original license so long as they don't change their software (unless 
the license is also time-limited in some way).  If an updated version of 
the program now comes with an updated (i.e. pay me $1,000,000 dollars) 
license, it's up to the developer responsible for the ebuild to take 
that into account, which will most definitely require a new 
ACCEPT_LICENSE value.

This will need to be taken into account when writing up an 
"ACCEPT_LICENSE" policy - every time a license changes, even if it is a 
very minor wording change, the license values have to change as well. 
If VMware, for example, adds a clause to their license agreement, this 
needs to be reflected with a new license value (let's call it, for the 
sake of discussion, 'vmware-2').  If they later add another one, that 
means a vmware-3 license is needed, and so on and so forth.

I'm certainly with you on not allowing * for licenses, but as has also 
been suggested here, I'm completely against a default that only allows 
includes OSI/FSF-approved software.  As often as possible, users should 
be able to just "emerge someprog" and have "someprog" be installed.  The 
default should include all licenses that don't require explicit license 
acceptance for installation - vmware is a good example - so that adding 
an ACCEPT_LICENSE option to portage does not require Gentoo users to do 
anything more than they have to now, but more easily allows packages 
that require explicit license acceptance.

However, we _do_ need to support a "-*" option, to allow the free 
software jihadists to have their way, without inconveniencing the rest 
of us.  The fact that I've seen comments in this thread to the effect of 
"having a choice of free and non-free software is not a choice," or 
"everyone should have a choice only as long as it's the same thing I 
choose" truly saddens me.

-- Jason Rhinelander
-- Gossamer Threads, Inc.


Bob Miller wrote:
> Christian Birchinger wrote:
> 
> 
>>It might sound a bit rude but i think the defaults should be
>>defined that most of the time only zealots need to tweak
>>them. I think most users don't care about most licenses and
>>shouldn't need to mess with this.
> 
> 
> I've seen several people express this attitude, and I like it a lot.
> 
> Let me tell you about my retirement plan.  I'm going to write a game,
> Linux-only, make it good enough that a few hundred of you will emerge
> it and try it out.  Then I'll change the license agreement so that
> next time you emerge the game you'll owe me $1million US.  Since
> you all have ACCEPT_LICENSES="*" as the default, you'll all accept my
> new license, I'll take you all to court (after subpoenaing apache logs
> from all the mirrors so I know who you are, and subpoenaing your
> make.conf and make.globals to prove you accepted the license), and sue
> you for my license fee.  If I can recover 1% of what you'll all owe
> me, I'll be happy enough.
> 
> Okay, that's NOT REALLY my plan.  I'm at least slightly ethical. (-:
> But it illustrates why you don't under any circumstances want
> ACCEPT_LICENSES="*", either as the default or as an option.  Accepting
> a license has consequences, and those consequences can hurt you.*  I'd
> recommend against letting the parser recognize a wildcard for licenses
> -- there's just too much danger for people who don't know any better
> to hurt themselves.
> 
> That's my opinion.  It's worth what you paid for it.
> 
> 
> * For a real life example that's somewhat less heinous, consider the
>   BitKeeper license.


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo internal structure

[Matthew Kennedy]

Jon Portnoy <avenj@gentoo.org> writes:

> On Fri, Nov 21, 2003 at 02:54:39AM -0800, Erik Swanson wrote:
>> On Fri, 2003-11-21 at 02:33, donnie berkholz wrote:
>> > I think we should accept all the licenses by default except the ones for
>> > which the ACCEPT_LICENSE variable originally existed (the id games ones),
>> > since users must be forced to read and agree to those. This would keep the
>> > change seamless for the user unless said user wishes to change things.
>> 
>> As a user, I'd prefer if only OSI-approved licenses were accepted by
>> default. This also seems like it'd be most in keeping with the Gentoo
>> Social Contract.
>> 
>
> The social contract states that Gentoo Linux will never _depend_ on 
> nonfree software. However, we still provide it. If we moved over to a 
> Debian-esque "if you want nonfree software, you need to change settings" 
> it would irritate a decently large number of people.

[...]

Jon, 

That's such a vague statement we have in the social contract.  I've
always wondered what it meant specifically.

Matt
-- 
Matthew Kennedy
Gentoo Linux Developer

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo internal structure

[Jon Portnoy]

On Sat, Nov 22, 2003 at 12:47:59AM -0600, Matthew Kennedy wrote:
> Jon Portnoy <avenj@gentoo.org> writes:
> 
> 
> Jon, 
> 
> That's such a vague statement we have in the social contract.  I've
> always wondered what it meant specifically.

I would assume it means that the core distribution - things like Portage 
- will not depend on nonfree software.

In other words: you're never going to need bitkeeper to get the Portage 
tree.

-- 
Jon Portnoy
avenj/irc.freenode.net

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo internal structure

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1228 bytes --]

On Fri, 2003-11-21 at 05:54, Erik Swanson wrote:
> On Fri, 2003-11-21 at 02:33, donnie berkholz wrote:
> > I think we should accept all the licenses by default except the ones for
> > which the ACCEPT_LICENSE variable originally existed (the id games ones),
> > since users must be forced to read and agree to those. This would keep the
> > change seamless for the user unless said user wishes to change things.
> 
> As a user, I'd prefer if only OSI-approved licenses were accepted by
> default. This also seems like it'd be most in keeping with the Gentoo
> Social Contract.

As the developer whom was first bitten by the licensing issues, I would
have to agree.  Only the "free" licenses should be accepted by default. 
However, I also think that some form of logic and code needs to be added
to portage to add better support for this variable.  I think that once a
user has accepted the license, it should be added to his list of
accepted licenses automatically.  I understand that this isn't something
that would happen overnight, but it is definitely something that should
happen as far as I am concerned.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Developer, Gentoo Linux
Games Team

Is your power animal a pengiun?

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo internal structure

[Christian Birchinger]

"freelicenses" will start huge flamewars about what's a "free"
license and what not. Expect about 5-6 mails every week with
requests for adding or removing licenses to that definition.

On Fri, Nov 21, 2003 at 11:07:37AM +0100, Sven Vermeulen wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 20, 2003 at 10:13:32PM -0500, Aron Griffis wrote:
> > As Jason mentioned, putting reasonable defaults into make.defaults
> > accomplishes #1.  The default might even be ACCEPT_LICENSES='*', in
> > which case modification in make.conf would need to be something like
> > ACCEPT_LICENSES='-* GPL-1 GPL-2' (which then accomplishes #2)
> 
> I might be just awake, but this idea sparkles in my eyes with a "wow"
> subtitle. It is a great idea, and even though it has some rough edges (for
> instance we probably shouldn't accept all licenses per default -- you never
> know what the future might bring) and can be extended (kinda virtual-like,
> such as ACCEPT_LICENSES="freelicenses" which would embody all known free
> licenses) it is certainly something to consider.
> 
> Is this the first time this popped up? If not, is there any progress into
> creating a draft patch? Or a GLEP?
> 
> Wkr,
> 	Sven Vermeulen

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo internal structure

[Ciaran McCreesh]

On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 13:06:11 +0100 Christian Birchinger
<joker@gentoo.org> wrote:
| "freelicenses" will start huge flamewars about what's a "free"
| license and what not. Expect about 5-6 mails every week with
| requests for adding or removing licenses to that definition.

Well, then maybe have two virtuals: osiapproved and fsfapproved. That
way we can send the religious fanatics elsewhere...

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh
Mail:    ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web:     http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

RE: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo internal structure

[gentoo.org]

I'm not going to get into the free/non-free conversation other than to say I
appreciate, and I think a lot of users appreciate at least having free &
"non-free" software available in the portage tree, whether or not they
choose to use the non-free stuff.

Though I still think it's important to have some kind of license
acknowledgement for licenses other than the GPL.  The reason is that some
licenses may have restrictions that the end-user is not aware of, and it is
not immediately apparent what license a particular package is when a user
installs it.  Or that package could depend on another package with a
different license that the user is unware of. I don't think of it as being
"politically correct."  I just think it'll help the user know what he/she is
getting into.

So while I don't consider it an absolute requirement, I do think that it
doesn't in anyway "harm" Gentoo and is generally a "good thing."

-=m=-

-----Original Message-----
From: Brett I. Holcomb [mailto:brettholcomb@charter.net]
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 8:35 PM
To: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo internal structure


To be honest Jason, I think we need to leave it as is.  Gentoo is a distro
that allows us to get work done and not get into the "if you use non-free
software you have betrayed humanity" argument.  If we're not careful we will
end up the same as Debian.  The person raising the question is a zealot who
will accept nothing less then all free software and no non-free.  That was
explained many times and he, like all of us have a choice - use a distro
that
fits whatever philosophy you have.   Gentoo does not have the Debian
philosophy so for people who want that they can use Debian or another
equivalent.  For those of us who just want to do a job and if non-free is
the
best then we'll use  the non-free/commerical stuff  and stick with Gentoo.

Why should all of us who agree with the Gentoo philosopy have to add a bunch
of licenses stuff  to make.conf or wherever just to satisfy people who would
be happier with Debian type distros anyway.  We can get in a situation like
those who try to be politically correct - they are constantly modifying
their
school, program, whatever to fit the whims of the latest politically correct
mandate.  Gentoo's social contract is available to read - if we feel so
strongly that we can't agree to then we can go to another distro.

The id licensing is, to me, an odd case.  That's the only package it's been
an issue.  VMware and the others seem happy to let us have it in portage -
probably because they are time limited demos.

Don't mess with a good setup - it isn't broken so don't fix it <G>.


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo internal structure

[Matthew Kennedy]

Jason Stubbs <jasonbstubbs@mailandnews.com> writes:

[...]

> massive amount of licenses, I suggest having reasonable defaults for 
> ACCEPT_LICENSES is make.defaults.
>
> The reason for this is that the free vs non-free questioning comes up on -user 
> every month or two. Each time, the answer is invariably "you wont find what 
> you're looking for here". I would prefer to be able to say, "sure, Gentoo can 
> do that". And it seems if the above were implemented it would be as easy as 
> ACCEPT_LICENSES="-* GPL-1 GPL-2 LGPL-2 LGPL-2.1". (I'm not so familiar with 
> which licenses but I'm sure someone that cares would be).
>
> As a added benefit, using something similar to the above would ensure that a 
> stage3 tarball would never be 'polluted'. I'm sure there would be other 
> benefits, too.

[...]

Personally, I am only interested in supporting and using free
software, so...

The best solution is just to remove support for anything non-free in
portage and to also remove any non-free software from our mirrors.
Let some other external project step up to the plate and provide a
non-free overlay if they wish.  This would put us in a position to be
the only GNU/Linux distribution out there which is truly Free
according to GNU standards (AFAIK).  Wouldn't that be a great selling
point?

Failing that, your idea is a good one, and definitely worth
implementing.  

I would like to spend some time to get that feature added to portage
(as a patch, since I'm not a portage developer).  I think it will
require others to sort through the large list of licenses in
/usr/portage/licenses and decide what can be considered Free Software.

Matt

-- 
Matthew Kennedy
Gentoo Linux Developer

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo internal structure

[Don Seiler]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 574 bytes --]

I definitely agree with not mirroring non-free software.

Don.

On Fri, Nov 21, 2003 at 09:16:19AM -0600, Matthew Kennedy wrote:
> The best solution is just to remove support for anything non-free in
> portage and to also remove any non-free software from our mirrors.

-- 
"I've supported the administration in Colombia.  I think it's important for us
to be training Colombians in that part of the world.  The hemisphere is in our
interest to have a peaceful Colombia."

George W. Bush
October 11, 2000
Presidential Debate in Winston-Salem, North Carolina.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo internal structure

[Jon Portnoy]

On Fri, Nov 21, 2003 at 09:16:19AM -0600, Matthew Kennedy wrote:
> Jason Stubbs <jasonbstubbs@mailandnews.com> writes:
> 
> [...]
> 
> > massive amount of licenses, I suggest having reasonable defaults for 
> > ACCEPT_LICENSES is make.defaults.
> >
> > The reason for this is that the free vs non-free questioning comes up on -user 
> > every month or two. Each time, the answer is invariably "you wont find what 
> > you're looking for here". I would prefer to be able to say, "sure, Gentoo can 
> > do that". And it seems if the above were implemented it would be as easy as 
> > ACCEPT_LICENSES="-* GPL-1 GPL-2 LGPL-2 LGPL-2.1". (I'm not so familiar with 
> > which licenses but I'm sure someone that cares would be).
> >
> > As a added benefit, using something similar to the above would ensure that a 
> > stage3 tarball would never be 'polluted'. I'm sure there would be other 
> > benefits, too.
> 
> [...]
> 
> Personally, I am only interested in supporting and using free
> software, so...
> 
> The best solution is just to remove support for anything non-free in
> portage and to also remove any non-free software from our mirrors.
> Let some other external project step up to the plate and provide a
> non-free overlay if they wish.  This would put us in a position to be
> the only GNU/Linux distribution out there which is truly Free
> according to GNU standards (AFAIK).  Wouldn't that be a great selling
> point?
> 

No, actually, it would be the reason a lot of users return to a 
different distribution.

While you and I are free software advocates, you have to keep in mind 
what the greater user community wants and needs. I am very active in the 
user community and I can assure you that people definitely do not want 
to have to take extra steps to get nonfree software because a small 
group of people decided it should be that way. They want to be able to 
make decisions for themselves and think distributions should be there to 
facilitate whatever they choose to do, and I agree with them.

I also think that if we implement ACCEPT_LICENSES, it should most 
definitely accept all licenses (except e.g. the ID licenses) by 
default, or at least a grouping like 'free nonfree'

-- 
Jon Portnoy
avenj/irc.freenode.net

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo internal structure

[Sven Vermeulen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 885 bytes --]

On Fri, Nov 21, 2003 at 09:16:19AM -0600, Matthew Kennedy wrote:
> Personally, I am only interested in supporting and using free
> software, so...
> 
> The best solution is just to remove support for anything non-free in
> portage and to also remove any non-free software from our mirrors.
> Let some other external project step up to the plate and provide a
> non-free overlay if they wish. 

I disagree. Give the users who want the chance to not use "non-free"
software, but also give the others the chance to use non-free software.

I think you'll get a lot of gamers against you when you tell them you don't
want them to easily install their favorite non-free game :)

	Sven Vermeulen

-- 
 ^__^   And Larry saw that it was Good.
 (oo)                                      Sven Vermeulen
 (__)   http://www.gentoo.org              Gentoo Documentation Project

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo internal structure

[Matthew Kennedy]

Sven Vermeulen <swift@gentoo.org> writes:

> On Fri, Nov 21, 2003 at 09:16:19AM -0600, Matthew Kennedy wrote:
>> Personally, I am only interested in supporting and using free
>> software, so...
>>
>> The best solution is just to remove support for anything non-free in
>> portage and to also remove any non-free software from our mirrors.
>> Let some other external project step up to the plate and provide a
>> non-free overlay if they wish.
>
> I disagree. Give the users who want the chance to not use "non-free"
> software, but also give the others the chance to use non-free software.
>
> I think you'll get a lot of gamers against you when you tell them you don't
> want them to easily install their favorite non-free game :)

[...]

Jon, Sven,

Obviously, its more important that the "gamers" are not upset by a
single line change in make.conf.  The principle of building a Free
software distribution has got to be less important than that.

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.

Matt
--
Matthew Kennedy
Gentoo Linux Developer

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo internal structure

[Jon Portnoy]

On Sat, Nov 22, 2003 at 01:06:05AM -0600, Matthew Kennedy wrote:

> I suppose I am dismayed that we are failing to promote free software
> over proprietary software.

We are promoting giving users a choice. What we are failing at is trying 
to force them into using free software.

Quick poll of people reading this thread: Would you like to see the 
removal of nonfree software from the tree? That means things like 
vmware, the java packages, etc.

Or perhaps someone should start a poll in the forums in Gentoo Chat 
about it.

-- 
Jon Portnoy
avenj/irc.freenode.net

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo internal structure

[Mike Frysinger]

On Saturday 22 November 2003 02:32, Jon Portnoy wrote:
> Quick poll of people reading this thread: Would you like to see the
> removal of nonfree software from the tree? That means things like
> vmware, the java packages, etc.

i hope you're kidding ...
to be honest, if such a move were made, i'd wave goodbye to Gentoo ...
i joined because Gentoo offers such a choice ... the distro isnt bogged down 
by pointless fanatics crying GNU GNU GNU <insert your cause here>
-mike



--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo internal structure

[Caleb Tennis]

On Saturday 22 November 2003 07:43, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Saturday 22 November 2003 02:32, Jon Portnoy wrote:
>
> > Quick poll of people reading this thread: Would you like to see the
> > removal of nonfree software from the tree? That means things like
> > vmware, the java packages, etc.

As a Gentoo user/dev who has multiple deployments of Gentoo in a corporate 
environment, I would be highly pressed to look for an alternative 
distribution if non-free software was to be removed.  I promote free software 
as much as I can, but I simply have to sometimes make the most economically 
sound choice.

Think about the FSF's motive behind the creation of a Lesser GPL... to promote 
a more widespread use of the libraries vs. requiring code linked against it 
be freely available.  I think some analogous ideas can be drawn here as well.

Caleb

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo internal structure

[Brett I. Holcomb]

I have to add my nickel's worth here.  Mike, Caleb, Stewart and another 
respondent - nailed the crux of the issue.   Gentoo allows us choice - if we 
want an all free distro we can do it with Gentoo; if we want to use 
non-free/commerical software we can do it with Gentoo.  What's happening here 
is that those who feel "all free or nothing" want to impose their beliefs and 
philosophy on anyone - all their blather about choice is really just "I 
believe this and am going to make the rest of the world conform to my choice."

I've served my time as a Windows admin/maintainer/user/whatever and I hope I 
never go back there.  I want as much or more than these free only zealots to 
see OpenSource, Gentoo etc. succede in replacing MS wherever possible and we 
are making excellent strides.  Brazil is for it, towns in Germany, and 
Britian are wanting to go to OpenSource software.  And Gentoo can be part of 
that.  However, if we become like Debian and go free only Gentoo will be 
considered a fanatics distro and written off - and it will become a niche 
distro that appeals to a small group.  

Whether people like it or not they have to consider reality.  The reality is 
that many of us such as these countries moving to OpenSource and many of us 
users have a job to do - we don't do it we don't get paid.  So we use the 
best tools for the job.  If there is something free that is obviously the 
first consideration - AS LONG as it does the job well enough.  If not we use 
whatever suits the needs.  Crossover and VMWare are two excellent examples of 
commerical software that does what no free software does - allow you to run 
MS programs on Linux.  No, don't tell me about Wine - it doesn't run much of 
the MS software.  So if we have a need to run MS apps (and yes, that is part 
of the reality) do we tell our customers "I believe in only free so I will 
use Wine but it won't really work for what you want to do" or do we use what 
works in the form of Crossover or VMWare.  If I don't use what works best I 
am not servicing my customer properly and I will lose him.

Gentoo is the best distro out there - bar none.  Gentoo has addressed the 
biggest bugaboo of a distro and overcome it.  Portage provides us a clean 
easy way to keep updated and track what we have done.  No more infinite loops 
looking for RPM dependencies and hoping you got the right version.  This 
alone makes Gentoo better but add to this an attitude that Gentoo should help 
us to our job and allow us to run systems as we want them, whether is only 
free software or a mix, and not force a political philosophy down our throats 
makes Gentoo the very best.

Leave Gentoo as it is.  If someone feels so strongly they just can not even 
look at a distro that allows non-free software there is always Debian.

Like Mike I would have to dump Gentoo if they insist on joinng the Debian 
camp but I hope that Gentoo stays true to it's philosophy of given us easy to 
use distro which allows choice so both free and non-free can have systems 
that satisfy them.

On Saturday 22 November 2003 02:43, you wrote:
> On Saturday 22 November 2003 02:32, Jon Portnoy wrote:
> > Quick poll of people reading this thread: Would you like to see the
> > removal of nonfree software from the tree? That means things like
> > vmware, the java packages, etc.
>
> i hope you're kidding ...
> to be honest, if such a move were made, i'd wave goodbye to Gentoo ...
> i joined because Gentoo offers such a choice ... the distro isnt bogged
> down by pointless fanatics crying GNU GNU GNU <insert your cause here>
> -mike

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo internal structure

[Stewart Honsberger]

Jon Portnoy wrote:
>>I suppose I am dismayed that we are failing to promote free software
>>over proprietary software.
> 
> We are promoting giving users a choice. What we are failing at is trying 
> to force them into using free software.
> 
> Quick poll of people reading this thread: Would you like to see the 
> removal of nonfree software from the tree? That means things like 
> vmware, the java packages, etc.
> 
> Or perhaps someone should start a poll in the forums in Gentoo Chat 
> about it.

Much as I'm an advocate of free, open software - I'm also an advocate of 
choice. I'm also practical; I firmly believe in using the tool that does 
the job. There are just some applications where free/open software 
hasn't matured enough to be used in, eg, enterprise or even small 
business (or, for that matter, on the desktop).

I'd rather be able to use the proprietary software until the f/o stuff 
is mature enough for me to take the leap. Not everybody has the time to 
debug all of their software packages for several weeks before they can 
get full use out of it.

</ramble>

:P

-- 
Stewart Honsberger
Gentoo Developer
http://www.snerk.org/


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo internal structure

[Peter Ruskin]

On Saturday 22 Nov 2003 07:32, Jon Portnoy wrote:
> Quick poll of people reading this thread: Would you like to see the
> removal of nonfree software from the tree? That means things like
> vmware, the java packages, etc.

Most certainly _not_.

Peter
-- 
======================================================================
Portage 2.0.49-r15 (default-x86-1.4, gcc-3.2.3, glibc-2.3.2-r3, 
2.4.23_pre8-gss)
i686 AMD Athlon(tm) XP 3200+
======================================================================


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo internal structure

[Paul Varner]

On Sat, 2003-11-22 at 01:32, Jon Portnoy wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 22, 2003 at 01:06:05AM -0600, Matthew Kennedy wrote:
> 
> > I suppose I am dismayed that we are failing to promote free software
> > over proprietary software.
> 
> We are promoting giving users a choice. What we are failing at is trying 
> to force them into using free software.
> 
> Quick poll of people reading this thread: Would you like to see the 
> removal of nonfree software from the tree? That means things like 
> vmware, the java packages, etc.

If Gentoo were to do that, I would be back to SuSE in a heartbeat with
all traces of Gentoo wiped from my systems.  I came to Gentoo because of
the philosphy of giving the user choices.  For that freedom, I'm willing
to put up with the installs that take all day and the ever changing
portage tree.  Without that freedom of choice, Gentoo for me would no
longer be worth the effort.

What I would like to see is for the developers to flesh out the
ACCEPT_LICENSES variable. Set the defaults so that what is installed now
still gets installed by default. Finally, Document it in a very visible
way.  For those that don't want "non-free" software on their systems,
they now can be assured that they are getting what they want.  For those
of us that want the free (as in freedom, not beer) OS, but aren't as
picky when it comes to applications, we have that choice as well. To me
that is in keeping with the philosphy of Gentoo.  That philosphy is why
I decided to move to Gentoo.  Take that away from me, and I will be
moving on.

PS:  Just a thought, if the licensing were implemented, why not create
another set of Live CD's with only the free licenses implemented.  Then
we could have GNU/Gentoo (for lack of a better term).

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo internal structure

[Donnie Berkholz]

On Sat, 2003-11-22 at 02:32, Jon Portnoy wrote:
> Quick poll of people reading this thread: Would you like to see the 
> removal of nonfree software from the tree? That means things like 
> vmware, the java packages, etc.
> 
> Or perhaps someone should start a poll in the forums in Gentoo Chat 
> about it.

So many other people have summed it up so well.

People who want only free software, you have your choice.

But don't take away mine.

Removing all non-free software from the Portage tree and telling me to
find it elsewhere is not a choice. One of the reasons I use Gentoo is so
I don't have to look all over the Internet when I want to install a
program, like I did when I used an RPM-based distribution.


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo internal structure

[Andrew Cowie]

On Sat, 2003-11-22 at 18:32, Jon Portnoy wrote:
> Quick poll ...

If ACCEPT_LICENCES is implemented with anything other than "any" as a
default, then I can see very quickly needing to have a line in the
Documentation (not to mention endless forum postings) saying:

   '...and then edit /etc/make.conf to say ACCEPT_LICENCES="*" ...'

AfC

-- 
Andrew Frederick Cowie
Operational Dynamics Consulting Pty Ltd

Australia +61 2 9977 6866

http://www.operationaldynamics.com/

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo internal structure

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1107 bytes --]

On Mon, 2003-11-24 at 01:37, Andrew Cowie wrote:
> On Sat, 2003-11-22 at 18:32, Jon Portnoy wrote:
> > Quick poll ...
> 
> If ACCEPT_LICENCES is implemented with anything other than "any" as a
> default, then I can see very quickly needing to have a line in the
> Documentation (not to mention endless forum postings) saying:
> 
>    '...and then edit /etc/make.conf to say ACCEPT_LICENCES="*" ...'

Except that Gentoo CANNOT tell you that officially, since there are
licenses out there which would prohibit it.  We could allow all licenses
EXCEPT the prohibited ones (such as id Games) by default, but NOWHERE
would you EVER find Gentoo officially telling people to put
ACCEPT_LICENSES="*" because that would put us in the same legal boat we
were in before and make us look like a bunch of selfish jerks who don't
play well with the community.  Honestly, we need to do soemthing about
this now when it isn't a big problem so that further down the orad we
won't get bitten by legal actions.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Developer, Gentoo Linux
Games Team

Is your power animal a pengiun?

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo internal structure

[Matthew Kennedy]

Jon Portnoy <avenj@gentoo.org> writes:

> On Sat, Nov 22, 2003 at 01:06:05AM -0600, Matthew Kennedy wrote:
>
>> I suppose I am dismayed that we are failing to promote free software
>> over proprietary software.
>
> We are promoting giving users a choice. What we are failing at is trying 
> to force them into using free software.

Proprietary software is not much of a "choice" to provide.

BTW: set your MUA to respond to the list, not to me.

-- 
Matthew Kennedy
Gentoo Linux Developer

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo internal structure

[Stewart Honsberger]

Matthew Kennedy wrote:
>>>I suppose I am dismayed that we are failing to promote free software
>>>over proprietary software.
>>
>>We are promoting giving users a choice. What we are failing at is trying 
>>to force them into using free software.
> 
> Proprietary software is not much of a "choice" to provide.

If it does the job better than the free alternative, the OSS community 
hasn't offered a viable "choice" either.

-- 
Stewart Honsberger
Gentoo Developer
http://www.snerk.org/


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo internal structure

[Jon Portnoy]

On Sat, Nov 22, 2003 at 01:06:05AM -0600, Matthew Kennedy wrote:
> Sven Vermeulen <swift@gentoo.org> writes:
> 
> > On Fri, Nov 21, 2003 at 09:16:19AM -0600, Matthew Kennedy wrote:
> >> Personally, I am only interested in supporting and using free
> >> software, so...
> >>
> >> The best solution is just to remove support for anything non-free in
> >> portage and to also remove any non-free software from our mirrors.
> >> Let some other external project step up to the plate and provide a
> >> non-free overlay if they wish.
> >
> > I disagree. Give the users who want the chance to not use "non-free"
> > software, but also give the others the chance to use non-free software.
> >
> > I think you'll get a lot of gamers against you when you tell them you don't
> > want them to easily install their favorite non-free game :)
> 
> [...]
> 
> Jon, Sven,
> 
> Obviously, its more important that the "gamers" are not upset by a
> single line change in make.conf.  The principle of building a Free
> software distribution has got to be less important than that.
> 

And because I forgot to mention it in my previous mail...

You were not suggesting making people make a single line change. You 
were suggesting forcing all nonfree software out of the tree.

-- 
Jon Portnoy
avenj/irc.freenode.net

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo internal structure

[Matthew Kennedy]

Jon Portnoy <avenj@gentoo.org> writes:


[...]

>
> You were not suggesting making people make a single line change. You 
> were suggesting forcing all nonfree software out of the tree.
>

[...]

No i think if you read properly you'll find out that I put forward
what I personally believe is the best solution, and then went on to
support the ACCEPT_LICENSES solution.

Matt

-- 
Matthew Kennedy
Gentoo Linux Developer

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo internal structure

[Sven Vermeulen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1609 bytes --]

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). 

Wkr,
	Sven Vermeulen

-- 
 ^__^   And Larry saw that it was Good.
 (oo)                                      Sven Vermeulen
 (__)   http://www.gentoo.org              Gentoo Documentation Project

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo internal structure

[Heiko Vogel]

Does this thread ever reach an end ?!

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo internal structure

[Jason Stubbs]

On Saturday 22 November 2003 23:42, Heiko Vogel wrote:
> Does this thread ever reach an end ?!

Sorry to continue it! ;-)

I just want to say that, in posting, it was never my original intention to 
start of a fsf vs non-fsf debate. I'm surprised most many people have 
subscribed to it. In fact, if you look back to my original e-mail, my main 
reason for (re-)suggesting the idea was to prevent these sorts of debates! 
What can one do? ;-)

Regards,
Jason

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo internal structure, Will it ever end?

[William McArthur]

Heiko Vogel wrote:
> Does this thread ever reach an end ?!

No, because it's like a debate on religion.  Each side has their reasons 
for *feeling* the way that they do and is not really willing to consider 
opposing opinions. Each side also thinks if they point out what they 
consider obivious just a little harder that the other side will be 
"enlightened".

The best this is that instead of trying to enforce a free software only 
world, eg: RMS, or closed source only world, eg: MS, people should 
tolerate differing opinions.

Sandy McArthur


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo internal structure, Will it ever end?

[Brett I. Holcomb]

That's what most of the responces have pointed out - Gentoo's currrent 
philosophy is to give us all choice to run what we need or desire.  
Unfortunately some people felt we should not have that choice and wanted to 
dump any package that did not meet their approval as free, open, whatever out 
of portage and anyone who wants those packages had to go find them himself.  
Not real tolerant.  Gentoo's setup is fine for all and tolerates each side - 
why change it?


On Saturday 22 November 2003 17:52, you wrote:
> Heiko Vogel wrote:
> > Does this thread ever reach an end ?!
>
> The best this is that instead of trying to enforce a free software only
> world, eg: RMS, or closed source only world, eg: MS, people should
> tolerate differing opinions.
>
> Sandy McArthur

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo internal structure, Will it ever end?

[Jason Stubbs]

On Sunday 23 November 2003 08:43, Brett I. Holcomb wrote:
> That's what most of the responces have pointed out - Gentoo's currrent
> philosophy is to give us all choice to run what we need or desire.
> Unfortunately some people felt we should not have that choice and wanted to
> dump any package that did not meet their approval as free, open, whatever
> out of portage and anyone who wants those packages had to go find them
> himself. Not real tolerant.  Gentoo's setup is fine for all and tolerates
> each side - why change it?

Because you are still looking at it from two sides. Stop proliferating this 
"us & them" theme so aggressively. My motivation for the change is that it 
addresses several needs. I'll illustrate:

1) The person who only wants to run FSF approved software can ensure that he 
does.
2) The person who only is able to legally run free-for-noncommercial-user 
software can ensure he does.
3) The inquisitive person (me) who wants to know all the licenses they are 
implicitly agreeing to can find out easily.

There are many needs and issues to do with licensing other than the "us & 
them" that most cannot see beyond.

Jason

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo internal structure

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1895 bytes --]

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?

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo internal structure

[Jeremy Maitin-Shepard]

Chris Gianelloni <wolf31o2@gentoo.org> writes:

> On Sat, 2003-11-22 at 05:28, Sven Vermeulen wrote:

> 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.

While such functionality would be useful, I do not like the idea of my
configuration files being modified "automagically."  If portage makes
such a modification at all, such functionality should be controlled by
a FEATURE selection.

-- 
Jeremy Maitin-Shepard

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo internal structure

[Lisa Seelye]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 556 bytes --]

On Sat, 2003-11-22 at 02:06, Matthew Kennedy wrote:
> I suppose I am dismayed that we are failing to promote free software
> over proprietary software.

That is neither our job or place.  We give our users as many packages as
we can and let them make the decision themselves.

It would be a sad day indeed when a distribution based on user choice
(such as ours) eliminated a whole class of software just to avoid making
a relatively easy change to Portage.

-- 
Regards,
-Lisa
<Vix ulla tam iniqua pax, quin bello vel aequissimo sit potior>

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo internal structure

[Christian Birchinger]

Offering a choice was always a very important thing in Gentoo.
Forcing the user into freesoftware will only make them switch.
The people who like that zealotery already use Debian anyway.

The choice is the most important thing for me.

Personaly i hate closed source stuff installed on my machine.
I dislike Nvidias binary only drivers and would never buy
hardware which requires me to use proprietary software.

That's my personal choice and not a reason to suggest ripping
out Nvidia drivers from Gentoo. The user should have the choice
to use it or not.

On Sat, Nov 22, 2003 at 01:06:05AM -0600, Matthew Kennedy wrote:
> Sven Vermeulen <swift@gentoo.org> writes:
> 
> > On Fri, Nov 21, 2003 at 09:16:19AM -0600, Matthew Kennedy wrote:
> >> Personally, I am only interested in supporting and using free
> >> software, so...
> >>
> >> The best solution is just to remove support for anything non-free in
> >> portage and to also remove any non-free software from our mirrors.
> >> Let some other external project step up to the plate and provide a
> >> non-free overlay if they wish.
> >
> > I disagree. Give the users who want the chance to not use "non-free"
> > software, but also give the others the chance to use non-free software.
> >
> > I think you'll get a lot of gamers against you when you tell them you don't
> > want them to easily install their favorite non-free game :)
> 
> [...]
> 
> Jon, Sven,
> 
> Obviously, its more important that the "gamers" are not upset by a
> single line change in make.conf.  The principle of building a Free
> software distribution has got to be less important than that.
> 
> 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.
> 
> Matt
> --
> Matthew Kennedy
> Gentoo Linux Developer

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo internal structure, Will it ever end?

[Brett I. Holcomb]

The thread started talking very specific - do we dump the non-OSI and tell
those who want that to find another distro or windows or do we maintain the
philosophy of Gentoo where either side can make an install that suits their
needs/philosophy.

This started with someone saying "We need to go cater to those who want
only OSI" and from there many said "we need to go only OSI and remove non
OSI stuff from portage" and those who wanted commericial/non-free could
hope a third party provided that or go to another distro.  This provoked
replies stating that Gentoo's philosophy was choice and being able to do a
job and OSI only took away that choice and crippled the ability to do the
job. Eventually the thread morphed into it's current form of consideration
 of how to handle licensing in portage.

The thread started talking very specific - do we dump the non-OSI and tell
those who want that to find another distro or windows or do we maintain the
 philosophy of Gentoo where either side can make an install that suits their
 needs/philosophy.

> On Sunday 23 November 2003 13:18, you wrote:
> > On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 18:43:36 -0500
> >
> > "Brett I. Holcomb" <brettholcomb@charter.net> wrote:
> > > That's what most of the responces have pointed out - Gentoo's currrent
> > >
> > > philosophy is to give us all choice to run what we need or desire.
> > > Unfortunately some people felt we should not have that choice and
> > > wanted to dump any package that did not meet their approval as free,
> > > open, whatever out of portage and anyone who wants those packages had
> > > to go find them himself.  Not real tolerant.  Gentoo's setup is fine
> > > for all and tolerates each side - why change it?
> >
> > Hum, I didn't catch that from this thread. My impression was the desire
> > to know more implicitly what licences the software used was _using_.
> > OTOH, there still isn't patch to portage waiting in the wings, so like
> > most flamewars^w debates, we arn't talking about spacifics yet (just pie
> > in the sky.) :)

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list