From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-project+bounces-2842-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>
Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80])
	by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53AB21381F3
	for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 19:07:54 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 953B5E09C0;
	Thu, 25 Jul 2013 19:07:48 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E928CE09B6
	for <gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org>; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 19:07:47 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [192.168.1.33] (143.Red-2-137-62.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net [2.137.62.143])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	(Authenticated sender: pacho)
	by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1C5E033DAC9;
	Thu, 25 Jul 2013 19:07:44 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <1374779261.4925.16.camel@localhost>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] changing the default of ACCEPT_LICENSE in
 portage
From: Pacho Ramos <pacho@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org
Cc: licenses@gentoo.org, Alexander Berntsen <alexander@plaimi.net>
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 21:07:41 +0200
In-Reply-To: <CAEdQ38HHbiLdn4fico17G+M=cYzOHtegXUaEKtJAHmQgdxMoSQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <51F16EF7.30606@gentoo.org> <1374778562.4925.9.camel@localhost>
	 <CAEdQ38HHbiLdn4fico17G+M=cYzOHtegXUaEKtJAHmQgdxMoSQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Mailer: Evolution 3.8.4 
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-project+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-project+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-project+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Project discussion list <gentoo-project.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Archives-Salt: ad8077cc-8940-47b5-b89b-e09c0709fb33
X-Archives-Hash: e9953792cfb77dd7eade5f75d1b174f6

El jue, 25-07-2013 a las 11:58 -0700, Matt Turner escribió:
> On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 11:56 AM, Pacho Ramos <pacho@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > I disagree because I don't think "promoting" free software should imply
> > we shouldn't allow non-free software to be installed easily :/
> 
> Let's not claim that modifying make.conf is anything but trivial.
> 

It's trivial (I always overwrite it to simply put "*"), but why someone
installing a package not using that FREE licenses will need to edit it?
How does it "promote" free software? I don't think making installation
of other software more difficult is the right way to promote it.

What apart of showing users a new "error" by default adds this decision?
I think the way to promote free software is to be sure our virtuals list
free alternatives in first time, that way people will get free software
when packages are providing same functionality. 

But feel free to do what you prefer, I haven't ever expended much time
in all this licensing stuff (even preferring free licenses) and I know
how this usually end (this reminds me last time I talked with an openBSD
developer that works with my father about how he disagrees with GPL and
similar :P)