Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo internal structure

[Christian Birchinger <joker@gentoo.org>]

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