Re: [gentoo-dev] Adding AdobeFlash-10{,.1} licenses to EULA group

[Alec Warner <antarus@gentoo.org>]

On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 2:08 AM, Lars Wendler <polynomial-c@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Am Freitag 18 Juni 2010, 03:42:29 schrieb Brian Harring:
>> On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 05:14:16PM -0500, Dale wrote:
>> > Lars Wendler wrote:
>> > > Am Mittwoch 16 Juni 2010, 14:45:21 schrieb Angelo Arrifano:
>> > >> On 16-06-2010 14:40, Jim Ramsay wrote:
>> > >>> Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn<chithanh@gentoo.org>  wrote:
>> > >>>> One notable section is 7.6 in which Adobe reserves the right to
>> > >>>> download and install additional Content Protection software on the
>> > >>>> user's PC.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Not like anyone will actually *read* the license before adding it to
>> > >>> their accept group, but if they did this would indeed be an important
>> > >>> thing of which users should be aware.
>> > >>
>> > >> I defend it is our job to warn users about this kind of details. To me
>> > >> it sounds that a einfo at post-build phase would do the job, what do
>> > >> you guys think?
>> > >
>> > > Definitely yes! This is a very dangerous snippet in Adobe's license
>> > > which should be pretty clearly pointed at to every user.
>> >
>> > Could that also include a alternative to adobe?  If there is one.
>>
>> The place to advocate free alternatives (or upstreams that are
>> nonsuck) isn't in einfo messages in ebuilds, it's on folks blogs or at
>> best in metadata.xml... einfo should be "this is the things to watch
>> for in using this/setting it up" not "these guys are evil, use one of
>> the free alternatives!".
>
> Maybe I expressed myself a bit misinterpretative. I don't want to request an
> elog message telling users about alternative packages. But in my opinion an
> elog message pointing at the bald-faced parts of Adobe's license should be
> added. These parts about allowing Adobe to install further content protection
> software is just too dangerous in my opinion.

I will ignore the technical portion where basically any binary on your
system; even binaries you compiled yourself have the ability to
'install things you do not like' when run as root (and sometimes when
run as a normal user as well.)

The real meat here is that you want Gentoo to take some kind of stand
on particular licensing terms.  I don't think this is a good
precedent[0] to set for our users.  It presumes we will essentially
read the license in its entirety and inform users of the parts that we
think are 'scary.'[1]  The user is the person who is installing and
running the software.  The user is the person who should be reading
and agreeing with any licensing terms lest they find the teams
unappealing.  I don't find it unreasonable to implement a tool as
Duncan suggested because it is not a judgement but a statement of
fact.  "The license for app/foo has changed from X to Y.  You should
review the changes accordingly by running <blah>"

[0] There is an existing precedent for reading the license and
ensuring Gentoo itself is not violating the license by distributing
said software.  Gentoo takes measures to reduce its own liability in
case a lawsuit arises; however this is a pretty narrow case.
[1] The other bad part here is that 'scary' is itself a judgement call
about licensing terms.  I do not want to have arguments with users
about which terms I should have to warn them about versus not.  Users
should (ideally) be reading the software licenses for software they
choose to use.

-A

>
>> Grok?
>>
>> ~harring
>
> --
> Lars Wendler (Polynomial-C)
> Gentoo developer and bug-wrangler
>
>