From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 28B7F138334 for ; Wed, 30 Jan 2019 00:35:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B5C2DE0CB9; Wed, 30 Jan 2019 00:35:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-lj1-x231.google.com (mail-lj1-x231.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2C6C5E0CB8 for ; Wed, 30 Jan 2019 00:35:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-lj1-x231.google.com with SMTP id s5-v6so19131238ljd.12 for ; Tue, 29 Jan 2019 16:35:38 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gentoo-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=3UnrFdedp3xaBi5nnETMX3qG6lfTZQsUJ3cHKIVJV54=; b=MbZdxzLMmhJHqHzCDdwtqJlFM3r3SV2+pGSn+qjFI7kXf2TzHSWAvvToHzSIFydB95 jJisL+fsh4dx0TmGDO0m2U9mHWNyu4PGjYTWo95xD3R5YJw7aja8RVDI4ZkoteF1QYgI gze461+KwPkdom/NiOhEqeWJekPYH4rlayKI9/EGOl9qQuvjW89t7Nmo3BvDBgSLgGXS oT3KvKxvk8EBlW0LQT0/r656lkYrzJONpFNl990J1v54ise0AtbH7FDYJ9kEUkTM12k8 9QHiuORAqL9dIxzaPSw04o8J0DtVrTVTm/3XqBy6j98zX/XrUrW3PfDGRP/ZjdkKAAqs +wbQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=3UnrFdedp3xaBi5nnETMX3qG6lfTZQsUJ3cHKIVJV54=; b=UAS6rjtS6cxYVNtRuYHoZcnwqiPQ3uGmY4s7SyH2xVCycaBETQsd3hxXmfDR3+6erO hkW9zD7CuYOe6EFCYhkLVw1DrPexlSXnteAvWsqa/o+NoeA9UEzMuDtke3II9KNZWQ0q /jMkdNK+tAnXTqNluSHw0RuXmpRAjXDmngTcOfVurCE/PnudPQNRX73gXGRN2cbn2EX2 FDkgdEJkLoMZgq8fx09/Us4i84gw3fHic0zo/1uKAhfjSnPUspfy0pr75LvVRpANvU7Z 2Mea8m53dCc52J9f0I5/PNONd60rUX5G4hkCSevoBncaDU2E/Iw0h1Qaa06+H0mmcq+I vZ/w== X-Gm-Message-State: AJcUukfU6fVPVeMSX9abt77illYoXD+nw3FZX5btiQmdKb3mytq9kH3C hhwLWGPqUanJieq0uuDe+ly5ZsvBmemcvuveBypKSR5vnBghtA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ALg8bN4veZ1MIlt0yOc7FMopyMW5+C8CGRlDaFgSypx2Sz+YqTg5HXAyddrmWXWS+llXT716V75LXj0Mcl/6U+ozt/E= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:8e8e:: with SMTP id z14-v6mr19265850ljk.84.1548808536767; Tue, 29 Jan 2019 16:35:36 -0800 (PST) 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 X-Auto-Response-Suppress: DR, RN, NRN, OOF, AutoReply MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <19f33ab8-fb98-275d-cea0-7a9710bf9f8e@gentoo.org> <417625d4-1741-254f-6417-a29c8e8e4bc0@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: From: Alec Warner Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2019 19:35:25 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] What should the default acceptable licenses be? To: gentoo-project Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000a8ec950580a2168f" X-Archives-Salt: d190d9eb-1389-4fc7-a72a-5588e418b649 X-Archives-Hash: 3c253bb1a5cc24a62ee122f968c38f0b --000000000000a8ec950580a2168f Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 7:12 PM Thomas Deutschmann 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 > > --000000000000a8ec950580a2168f Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On = Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 7:12 PM Thomas Deutschmann <whissi@gentoo.org> wrote:
<= blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-l= eft:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">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=3D"* -@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 <= br> > 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.
=C2=A0

> 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=3D"* -@EULA"

into

> ACCEPT_LICENSE=3D"@FREE"

I am not (yet) part of this motion.

But keep in mind: If this motion will end up with

> ACCEPT_LICENSE=3D"@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 com= e 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 no= t raised, so I ended up parsing the thread as free / non-free. Again my apo= logies.

I think the challenge here is always is pu= blishing why decisions were made, and then applying them evenly. For exampl= e:=C2=A0ht= tps://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/License_groups/Non-free lists many licenses = in the "non-free" category that are likely also not in the EULA c= ategory, that we allow by default.

So I'm tryi= ng to understand why we would exclude SSPL, but not 'arj' for examp= le.

-A
=C2=A0

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

--000000000000a8ec950580a2168f--