On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 7:12 PM Thomas Deutschmann <whissi@gentoo.org>
wrote:

> On 2019-01-29 18:53, Alec Warner wrote:
> > 1) Do the users not currently have a choice today? (e.g. do we need
> > to populate the @nonfree license set?)
>
> Yes and no :-)
>
> In theory, users currently have a choice. However we set
>
> > ACCEPT_LICENSE="* -@EULA"
>
> by default. This means:
>
> The package manager will accept _any_ license except licenses within
> EULA license group.
>

>
> > 2) Are the users aware of the choice? I suspect this feels closer to
> > your intent. While its perhaps technically possible to make an
> > informed decisions on licensing we do not force users to make a
> > choice, and so many accept the default.
>
> Nobody can answer that question for sure. We can only take Brian's mail
> as data point that at least new users aren't aware.
>
> Most users will notice once they have to install a package which is
> using an EULA. Famous package was www-plugins/adobe-flash or drivers.
>
>
I'm trying to ascertain if this is something we should push for. We could
make the default "-*" and force users to make a choice, for example.


>
> > 3) Some Gentoo community members find the existing default
> > problematic because it does includes nonfree software, and think
> > Gentoo should ship with only free software by default.
> >
> > I think if there isn't a @free-only (or -@nonfree) item we should do
> > the work to make that possible (so ensure 1 is implemented.)
> Stop. Maybe we need to split this discussion:
>
> SSPL is something new from my P.O.V. I am not aware of any other license
> which has special requirements when you decide to run the licensed
> software for someone else (or like you call it nowadays, "as a service").


> So even if SSPL will get OSI approval (and MonogDB upstream expects
> approval according to their FAQ) I am not sure if package manager should
> merge such a software without further prompts.
>

>
> My understanding is that some other developers want to go one step
> further and change
>
> > ACCEPT_LICENSE="* -@EULA"
>
> into
>
> > ACCEPT_LICENSE="@FREE"
>
> I am not (yet) part of this motion.
>
> But keep in mind: If this motion will end up with
>
> > ACCEPT_LICENSE="@FREE"
>
> we will get back to this topic in case OSI will approve SSPL in which
> case we would have to add SSPL to OSI-APPROVED which is part of FREE
> group...
>
>
So this is the first time SSPL has come up in the thread, but I see its the
original point of the bug. My bad, I fail at reading. When K_F opened the
thread, SSPL itself (and AGPL) were not raised, so I ended up parsing the
thread as free / non-free. Again my apologies.

I think the challenge here is always is publishing why decisions were made,
and then applying them evenly. For example:
https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/License_groups/Non-free lists many licenses in
the "non-free" category that are likely also not in the EULA category, that
we allow by default.

So I'm trying to understand why we would exclude SSPL, but not 'arj' for
example.

-A


>
> --
> Regards,
> Thomas Deutschmann / Gentoo Linux Developer
> C4DD 695F A713 8F24 2AA1 5638 5849 7EE5 1D5D 74A5
>
>