From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1OPYd9-0004WR-1I for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 18 Jun 2010 10:17:02 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 0293CE0B31; Fri, 18 Jun 2010 10:16:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-px0-f181.google.com (mail-px0-f181.google.com [209.85.212.181]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10EBFE09BF for ; Fri, 18 Jun 2010 10:16:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: by pxi18 with SMTP id 18so381666pxi.40 for ; Fri, 18 Jun 2010 03:16:36 -0700 (PDT) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.142.67.22 with SMTP id p22mr599457wfa.179.1276856196520; Fri, 18 Jun 2010 03:16:36 -0700 (PDT) Sender: antarus@scriptkitty.com Received: by 10.142.200.1 with HTTP; Fri, 18 Jun 2010 03:16:36 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <201006181108.29193.polynomial-c@gentoo.org> References: <4C169D32.5080706@gentoo.org> <4C1A9E38.8050206@gmail.com> <20100618014229.GA12490@hrair> <201006181108.29193.polynomial-c@gentoo.org> Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 03:16:36 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: HSg2qycY59R82WoR0gCUqCCUtRg Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Adding AdobeFlash-10{,.1} licenses to EULA group From: Alec Warner To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: 7cf00efc-a1f8-4cb8-b5f1-4390867350ac X-Archives-Hash: ccbdf87b81562bd99f2e81625a4be0e8 On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 2:08 AM, Lars Wendler wro= te: > 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: >> > >>> Ch=C3=AD-Thanh Christopher Nguy=E1=BB=85n =C2= =A0wrote: >> > >>>> One notable section is 7.6 in which Adobe reserves the right to >> > >>>> download and install additional Content Protection software on th= e >> > >>>> 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 import= ant >> > >>> 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 d= o >> > >> 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? =C2=A0If 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 b= e > added. These parts about allowing Adobe to install further content protec= tion > 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 " [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 > >