From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (unknown [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 53B3D138334 for ; Sun, 27 Jan 2019 01:26:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 32605E0AB1; Sun, 27 Jan 2019 01:25:57 +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 BD5FAE0A94 for ; Sun, 27 Jan 2019 01:25:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-lj1-x231.google.com with SMTP id l15-v6so11358924lja.9 for ; Sat, 26 Jan 2019 17:25:56 -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=VJOS4wGEhgDLsTahGMjpxGE2ppFPvgbW39nOSYemyJQ=; b=k0k/+qOyo2nhoS3lCFM0JM+n7YRUl4WHizJ/AwaVkPOo3HVukTdWVI6eaEGyofIP+G xiHQLeyw69H/GpVymcjrZhazOxfjSdHAoVoMsWhmi6v3XruLTf3UYAAa9N8VT7qmEAgL D7J83OvENFHlf6GHLkq11uxQOPlxo/55rJ3o7/pjXWreJbLE05AFS6fYYhrjhfeWdbn3 zVQpzZB+rWoRQdtB6v7vSF5gZqwfEXa1Xgt1/L+eVnAUIVuAw0qt/i+G3s0bFDbRrc9F ZQNQBkXoeQR+oOmoASoGyjhkizRgymkNym/E1IqxFaiTWarCkkMD+gKNhHQFnVK10Zux wHag== 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=VJOS4wGEhgDLsTahGMjpxGE2ppFPvgbW39nOSYemyJQ=; b=cFuh5ORiKa3FpmjOddgk2i9XL5qMKiFrG9bFhhF+vLV4pk4Upb+OFLJyeFbV986LVu 1esj6E2YM4Gfz0GLSYRppfnfJ9xdeqU0WXBS4zf7Q0ZE9oQICxbSa0epGNzbr0e7/wny /oQueMYspy6/ZNp//GdQZdxbRd4WBXtQSTIzsNLKUhqpVeRpK+LLRLtJpwxG20k3PnwW mINuDLmxxlAzeVom47WLHoUNb5IrhpDchzeXa7YsbUWHn1YTa/S90gHUskbS59SaVdGB LvgdDEB4aXT4+Eub30icnqx6cNAv9oRZGe8/A7YTGZopPvbuepkoC6m0h0v4EyKQOWDn A8Uw== X-Gm-Message-State: AJcUukehRTMxu+2vlimVXGUmDNpWFuZmZjh1kok7eyFMycoVp/PBEtRw LpLSqB1yiHScxTqqrxTwKUyYqvb7Gv+UNco4XD8W7f2snmQ= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ALg8bN4xG7TELpsup6KhikhqNcUuEyc8bLlG4Yed/hiv4+HclonYUxzwZiuKeJ1d7zwsFlGHSwk2SoizSCB/ejkcDZc= X-Received: by 2002:a05:651c:c8:: with SMTP id 8mr13209403ljr.53.1548552353971; Sat, 26 Jan 2019 17:25:53 -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: In-Reply-To: From: Alec Warner Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2019 20:25:42 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] What should the default acceptable licenses be? To: gentoo-project Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f993f605806670fe" X-Archives-Salt: 84a3b597-7635-4522-84fe-0d031802e590 X-Archives-Hash: 55bf5480758f948c6350fc1644786e77 --000000000000f993f605806670fe Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Sat, Jan 26, 2019 at 5:52 PM Rich Freeman wrote: > On Sat, Jan 26, 2019 at 4:04 PM Kristian Fiskerstrand > wrote: > > > > My personal opinion is we should have a default accepting FSF and OSI > > approved free/libre licenses and require acceptance for anything else > > though package.license / ACCEPT_LICENSE. > > From a practical standpoint is this going to block anything used on > our stage3s or boot CDs needed for hardware support, such as firmware > blobs/etc? I imagine most packages like this would not have > FSF/OSI-approved licenses. That includes linux-firmware. > I think the stage3 is already pretty minimal anyway, I'd be curious about what it would lose if we did this. > > I'm not sure if those are installed by default or how essential they > are to actually boot/use any common hardware. > I want to avoid having a singular product here. I think ::gentoo is the repo that is the metadistribution and we can basically have defaults there. Consumers of ::gentoo are expected to tweak it. I think this is different than say, a liveDVD image. The latter we don't expect users to tweak before using and we should be trying to support normal use cases. If we need to use non-free firmware to do it, I expect us to do that so that users who boot the media actually get a working Gentoo install. So I don't buy an argument that "Gentoo" as a whole has to do a particular thing. I expect this discussion is actually more about "the Gentoo repo" than about any particular shipped media. Maybe I'm misunderstanding things though. > > Aside from this, Gentoo has always been more about pragmatism when it > comes to licensing. We certainly make it easy to restrict licenses > and have a pure-free system, but I'm not sure how painful it would be > for users to have this be a default. > > In particular how likely is this to cause users to end up doing a > substantial rebuild 5 minutes after booting their stage3 just to get > the system back to a more "practical" state? Granted, bindist > probably already causes these sorts of issues but we have no choice > there. > I take the Bezos approach here. There are 2 types of decisions: reversible and irreversible. This is a reversible decision pretty much, so its low risk. If we change the default and the world starts to hate us, we can just change it back. -A > > -- > Rich > > --000000000000f993f605806670fe Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


=
On Sat, Jan 26, 2019 at 5:52 PM Rich = Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wr= ote:
On Sat, Jan= 26, 2019 at 4:04 PM Kristian Fiskerstrand <k_f@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> My personal opinion is we should have a default accepting FSF and OSI<= br> > approved free/libre licenses and require acceptance for anything else<= br> > though package.license / ACCEPT_LICENSE.

>From a practical standpoint is this going to block anything used on
our stage3s or boot CDs needed for hardware support, such as firmware
blobs/etc?=C2=A0 I imagine most packages like this would not have
FSF/OSI-approved licenses.=C2=A0 That includes linux-firmware.

I think the stage3 is already pretty minimal anyway= , I'd be curious about what it would lose if we did this.
=C2= =A0

I'm not sure if those are installed by default or how essential they are to actually boot/use any common hardware.

I want to avoid having a singular product here. I think ::gentoo is = the repo that is the metadistribution and we can basically have defaults th= ere. Consumers of ::gentoo are expected to tweak it. I think this is differ= ent than say, a liveDVD image. The latter we don't expect users to twea= k before using and we should be trying to support normal use cases. If we n= eed to use non-free firmware to do it, I expect us to do that so that users= who boot the media actually get a working Gentoo install.

So I don't buy an argument that "Gentoo" as a whole = has to do a particular thing. I expect this discussion is actually more abo= ut "the Gentoo repo" than about any particular shipped media. May= be I'm misunderstanding things though.
=C2=A0

Aside from this, Gentoo has always been more about pragmatism when it
comes to licensing.=C2=A0 We certainly make it easy to restrict licenses and have a pure-free system, but I'm not sure how painful it would be for users to have this be a default.

In particular how likely is this to cause users to end up doing a
substantial rebuild 5 minutes after booting their stage3 just to get
the system back to a more "practical" state?=C2=A0 Granted, bindi= st
probably already causes these sorts of issues but we have no choice
there.

I take the Bezos approach here. = There are 2 types of decisions: reversible and irreversible. This is a reve= rsible decision pretty much, so its low risk. If we change the default and = the world starts to hate us, we can just change it back.

-A
=C2=A0

--
Rich

--000000000000f993f605806670fe--