From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A8E61381F3 for ; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 19:52:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A7E7EE09B8; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 19:52:10 +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 17F76E09B6 for ; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 19:52:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [130.149.91.41] (shishapangma.kbs.tu-berlin.de [130.149.91.41]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: chithanh) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F0218335E2B for ; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 19:52:08 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <51F181E5.2040000@gentoo.org> Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 21:52:05 +0200 From: =?UTF-8?B?Q2jDrS1UaGFuaCBDaHJpc3RvcGhlciBOZ3V54buFbg==?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:22.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/22.0 SeaMonkey/2.19 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Project discussion list X-BeenThere: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Reply-To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] changing the default of ACCEPT_LICENSE in portage References: <51F16EF7.30606@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <51F16EF7.30606@gentoo.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archives-Salt: b143ccce-1989-4eb6-8fc3-ddf58fc95e99 X-Archives-Hash: d2196de6a6c8285bfa9c1b789ef88dae hasufell schrieb: > I think according to our philsophy and social contract we should > make people aware of free software and because of that also change > the default to: > > ACCEPT_LICENSE="@FREE" The problem with this approach is that while the license might qualify as "free", the software itself might not. This was already pointed out by someone else in this thread. So we would block some but not all non-free software. Software that is under non-copyleft free license (BSD, MIT, X11, Apache-2.0, ...) could still be distributed as sourceless binaries. Also this would affect the kernel sources when deblobbing is disabled. I am not against this move, but this will require a lot of effort in educating users about the consequences. Best regards, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn