[gentoo-project] changing the default of ACCEPT_LICENSE in portage

[gentoo-project] changing the default of ACCEPT_LICENSE in portage

[hasufell]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Gentoo has a social contract [1] which makes a lot of noise about free
software.
However our default settings allow to use almost any kind of non-free
license such as "all-rights-reserved".

While I see nothing wrong with gentoo providing proprietary stuff (and
I have created a lot of such games ebuilds), 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"

This is only about the _default_.
We will have to change the handbook at "1.d. Licenses" [2] and might
also make a news item.

- --
[1] http://www.gentoo.org/main/en/contract.xml
[2]
http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/handbook-amd64.xml?full=1#book_part2_chap1
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJR8W73AAoJEFpvPKfnPDWz0oMIAIroKkidvybPLql2fTeCoSUw
2S8F5xyz5pRzQ2DrOzaErOe62GgkH822rphB2Rlf7gXtjAlNqNe+6HzZklMOjMfZ
NDtis7MZhsS+TbfRfd/+/uE2F8R4Nb3dc+xIdftj0pJHJFe40HtcCmJElGwWRQpC
E4/bieSsVjkQXLfWblfLbxUVdPOC4y6yeurRiMIiweZii2NpGn2C7ZpV1h+W88pm
+SDpsbUpg9B2Pf726xIPha4m8IhgHSWj/OEJKEqS8GHpsTS6rNvmyd9EpFwcr9+v
kFEIqTCyIFJNNe+wNineY/UVl/OPlpibVv4dTLK8In/in79d9PCGGFXi4m3k2P4=
=OQMM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-project] changing the default of ACCEPT_LICENSE in portage

[Matthew Thode]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 826 bytes --]

On 07/25/2013 01:31 PM, hasufell wrote:
> Gentoo has a social contract [1] which makes a lot of noise about free
> software.
> However our default settings allow to use almost any kind of non-free
> license such as "all-rights-reserved".
> 
> While I see nothing wrong with gentoo providing proprietary stuff (and
> I have created a lot of such games ebuilds), 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"
> 
> This is only about the _default_.
> We will have to change the handbook at "1.d. Licenses" [2] and might
> also make a news item.
> 
> 
This is what I thought the default license group already was, I'm all
for it :D

-- 
-- Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] changing the default of ACCEPT_LICENSE in portage

[hasufell]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 07/25/2013 08:41 PM, Matthew Thode wrote:
> On 07/25/2013 01:31 PM, hasufell wrote:
>> Gentoo has a social contract [1] which makes a lot of noise about
>> free software. However our default settings allow to use almost
>> any kind of non-free license such as "all-rights-reserved".
>> 
>> While I see nothing wrong with gentoo providing proprietary stuff
>> (and I have created a lot of such games ebuilds), 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"
>> 
>> This is only about the _default_. We will have to change the
>> handbook at "1.d. Licenses" [2] and might also make a news item.
>> 
>> 
> This is what I thought the default license group already was, I'm
> all for it :D
> 

The default is currently:

ACCEPT_LICENSE:"* -@EULA"

in /usr/share/portage/config/make.globals
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJR8XF9AAoJEFpvPKfnPDWzdZwIAK9HBHHAVf8VyBuD7658ec18
LFBayzywvPx3sOx1KXLpf13kR6zqeRUEXkb53s5ExgSL/CKupijscohmydxd6xH7
PY+3SOCns7ef+U6JO5QfHbvfuZgUnffxn3woDouCnW9X+fyK4pglxl8ZFbOAJlsQ
VULHGRYVd6++H4qLJbbWDPC4Z3Lsvd/6JWWEd2O/M3nWUGb3XJdpwGdy62AqQMFq
R+cJuUUt1JuTbV8cFl417yTrJ+QMkhWaG35jm8BfLH0NWIO5DHVzFObm7udlIkMy
nd0VTforHn1WKzNSYV2ZexIo9q5sz6nS9d7/qis+Nj4g2pqTmXI53I37H4PEDqE=
=iXzq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[gentoo-project] Re: changing the default of ACCEPT_LICENSE in portage

[Steven J. Long]

hasufell wrote:
> Matthew Thode wrote:
> > hasufell wrote:
> >> Gentoo has a social contract [1] which makes a lot of noise about
> >> free software. However our default settings allow to use almost
> >> any kind of non-free license such as "all-rights-reserved".
> >> 
> >> While I see nothing wrong with gentoo providing proprietary stuff
> >> (and I have created a lot of such games ebuilds), 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"
> >> 
> >> This is only about the _default_. We will have to change the
> >> handbook at "1.d. Licenses" [2] and might also make a news item.
> >> 
> > This is what I thought the default license group already was, I'm
> > all for it :D
> 
> The default is currently:
> 
> ACCEPT_LICENSE:"* -@EULA"
> 
> in /usr/share/portage/config/make.globals

This is reasonable, but can we have the above old-default commented out in make.conf,
above the new setting? That way things are transparent, and users who want to switch
to using non-free can do so easily without the EULA stuff being pulled in, aiui it
would be if users simply put "*" in there.

After all, as you yourself wrote about:
> adding a line such as: ACCEPT_LICENSE="*"
..users are likely to reach for that by default, too, when they shouldn't accept
@EULA generically, but via package.license.

Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
> 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.

Presumably stages have been built, and machines installed using just @FREE? I'd just
like assurance that these "consequences" are known not to affect a standard desktop
install, or that this will be tested thoroughly before the switch, in which case it
is not, one would hope, imminent.

Regards,
steveL
-- 
#friendly-coders -- We're friendly, but we're not /that/ friendly ;-)

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: changing the default of ACCEPT_LICENSE in portage

[hasufell]

On 07/25/2013 10:29 PM, Steven J. Long wrote:
> hasufell wrote:
>> Matthew Thode wrote:
>>> hasufell wrote:
>>>> Gentoo has a social contract [1] which makes a lot of noise about
>>>> free software. However our default settings allow to use almost
>>>> any kind of non-free license such as "all-rights-reserved".
>>>>
>>>> While I see nothing wrong with gentoo providing proprietary stuff
>>>> (and I have created a lot of such games ebuilds), 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"
>>>>
>>>> This is only about the _default_. We will have to change the
>>>> handbook at "1.d. Licenses" [2] and might also make a news item.
>>>>
>>> This is what I thought the default license group already was, I'm
>>> all for it :D
>>
>> The default is currently:
>>
>> ACCEPT_LICENSE:"* -@EULA"
>>
>> in /usr/share/portage/config/make.globals
> 
> This is reasonable, but can we have the above old-default commented out in make.conf,
> above the new setting? That way things are transparent, and users who want to switch
> to using non-free can do so easily without the EULA stuff being pulled in, aiui it
> would be if users simply put "*" in there.
> 

Sure.

> After all, as you yourself wrote about:
>> adding a line such as: ACCEPT_LICENSE="*"
> ..users are likely to reach for that by default, too, when they shouldn't accept
> @EULA generically, but via package.license.
> 
> Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
>> 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.

I don't think it is that big. We have changed more critical defaults in
the past. A news item will suffice.

> 
> Presumably stages have been built, and machines installed using just @FREE? I'd just
> like assurance that these "consequences" are known not to affect a standard desktop
> install, or that this will be tested thoroughly before the switch, in which case it
> is not, one would hope, imminent.
> 

Of course we will test that and we will not just make it in silent, so
people don't get surprised when trying to update their production machines.

[gentoo-project] Re: Re: changing the default of ACCEPT_LICENSE in portage

[Steven J. Long]

hasufell wrote:
> Steven J. Long wrote:
> > hasufell wrote:
> >> The default is currently:
> >>
> >> ACCEPT_LICENSE:"* -@EULA"
> >>
> >> in /usr/share/portage/config/make.globals
> > 
> > This is reasonable, but can we have the above old-default commented out in
> > make.conf, above the new setting? That way things are transparent, and users
> > who want to switch to using non-free can do so easily without the EULA stuff
> > being pulled in, aiui it would be if users simply put "*" in there.
> 
> Sure.

Thanks; that was my main concern.
 
> Of course we will test that and we will not just make it in silent, so
> people don't get surprised when trying to update their production machines.

Thanks for the reassurance; and for the work you do on this lovely distro :)

-- 
#friendly-coders -- We're friendly, but we're not /that/ friendly ;-)

[gentoo-project] Re: changing the default of ACCEPT_LICENSE in portage

[Alexander Berntsen]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 25/07/13 20:31, hasufell wrote:
> 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"
I agree.  Is the BSD mess where some binaries had LICENSE="BSD"
cleared up? If not these will still be pulled in with @FREE, even if
they are obviously nonfree. This will have to be documented (or
preferably just fixed).

Additionally I think the about[0] or the philosophy[1] page should
mention *what* free software is and *why* the user should care.
Presently they only say that Gentoo *is* and *uses* free software.
This foregoes a chance to educate the user on free software.

[0]  <http://www.gentoo.org/main/en/about.xml>
[1]  <http://www.gentoo.org/main/en/philosophy.xml>
- -- 
Alexander
alexander@plaimi.net
http://plaimi.net/~alexander
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iF4EAREIAAYFAlHxc6YACgkQRtClrXBQc7XikgD+Kt9u1kWniGhzWJuHDD56K314
NdGN22JjdT5XhuljxG4A/0zVE5zzUO0wGbjX1lvBsGa4Ers5NQVrY3G5MtfZRPdw
=QlzT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-project] changing the default of ACCEPT_LICENSE in portage

[Pacho Ramos]

El jue, 25-07-2013 a las 20:31 +0200, hasufell escribió:
> Gentoo has a social contract [1] which makes a lot of noise about free
> software.
> However our default settings allow to use almost any kind of non-free
> license such as "all-rights-reserved".

I disagree because I don't think "promoting" free software should imply
we shouldn't allow non-free software to be installed easily :/

Re: [gentoo-project] changing the default of ACCEPT_LICENSE in portage

[Matt Turner]

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.

Re: [gentoo-project] changing the default of ACCEPT_LICENSE in portage

[Pacho Ramos]

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)

Re: [gentoo-project] changing the default of ACCEPT_LICENSE in portage

[hasufell]

On 07/25/2013 09:07 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> 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)
> 
> 
> 

It is not so much about what this does "improve" technically or if this
act alone promotes free software.

It's mainly about consistency with our social contract and will make
people aware that gentoo by default blocks non-free software, because
every user who wants more than that, will have to edit make.conf.

Re: [gentoo-project] changing the default of ACCEPT_LICENSE in portage

[Pacho Ramos]

El jue, 25-07-2013 a las 21:16 +0200, hasufell escribió:
[...]
> It's mainly about consistency with our social contract and will make
> people aware that gentoo by default blocks non-free software, because
> every user who wants more than that, will have to edit make.conf.

But do we really give the impression "Gentoo *blocks* non-free
software" (that could make people not yet using Gentoo to think we are
some kind of that distributions that are really blocking non-free
software and, then, maybe some of them wouldn't even try it because
maybe they think his nvidia card won't work ok)

I would prefer to give the impression we try to use free software when
possible even letting people to, for example, install other software
easily without needing to use exotic third party repositories. That
shows Gentoo as distribution ready for all kind of people:
- People wanting to only run FREE
- Others not really taking care of it.

Re: [gentoo-project] changing the default of ACCEPT_LICENSE in portage

[hasufell]

On 07/25/2013 09:30 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> El jue, 25-07-2013 a las 21:16 +0200, hasufell escribió:
> [...]
>> It's mainly about consistency with our social contract and will make
>> people aware that gentoo by default blocks non-free software, because
>> every user who wants more than that, will have to edit make.conf.
> 
> But do we really give the impression "Gentoo *blocks* non-free
> software"

No, that is just wrong. People who are not able to read the gentoo
handbook will fail to install and use it. Thas has always been a fact.

Those who read the handbook will also come across the license section,
which explains the situation.

Re: [gentoo-project] changing the default of ACCEPT_LICENSE in portage

[hasufell]

On 07/25/2013 08:56 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> El jue, 25-07-2013 a las 20:31 +0200, hasufell escribió:
>> Gentoo has a social contract [1] which makes a lot of noise about free
>> software.
>> However our default settings allow to use almost any kind of non-free
>> license such as "all-rights-reserved".
> 
> I disagree because I don't think "promoting" free software should imply
> we shouldn't allow non-free software to be installed easily :/
> 
> 

We do allow non-free software to be installed easily.

If you think that adding a line such as
ACCEPT_LICENSE="*"

into make.conf is difficult, then I am sorry about your expecations of
the average gentoo user.

Re: [gentoo-project] changing the default of ACCEPT_LICENSE in portage

[Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn]

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

Re: [gentoo-project] changing the default of ACCEPT_LICENSE in portage

[hasufell]

On 07/25/2013 09:52 PM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
> 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.
> 
> 

I don't see the problem. BSD, MIT, Apache-2.0 are all GPL-Compatible and
not even a pure GNU system bans them.

Such details can be explained in an informative section in the handbook
or the wiki which was already suggested before.

Re: [gentoo-project] changing the default of ACCEPT_LICENSE in portage

[Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn]

hasufell schrieb:

> I don't see the problem. BSD, MIT, Apache-2.0 are all GPL-Compatible and
> not even a pure GNU system bans them.

This is not a problem technology wise, but it means that ACCEPT_LICENSE
changes cannot ensure that we deliver only free software. Sourceless binaries
are by definition not free, even if their license is free.

Now we could add more pseudo-licenses to ACCEPT_LICENSE to distinguish source
code under BSD license from binaries under BSD license, or use some other
ebuild variable. This is what ulm suggests if I understand correctly.

Note that this can also extend to fonts, artwork, firmware, etc. which does
not come in the preferred form for modification (this what is Debian does).


Best regards,
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn

Re: [gentoo-project] changing the default of ACCEPT_LICENSE in portage

[Ulrich Mueller]

>>>>> On Thu, 25 Jul 2013, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:

> Now we could add more pseudo-licenses to ACCEPT_LICENSE to
> distinguish source code under BSD license from binaries under BSD
> license, or use some other ebuild variable. This is what ulm
> suggests if I understand correctly.

I suggest that we add exactly one "no-source-code" pseudo license.
So binary-only BSD, MIT, etc. packages would be marked "BSD
no-source-code" or "MIT no-source-code". Since the "no-source-code"
license wouldn't be a member of the @FREE license group, installation
of such packages would be prevented with ACCEPT_LICENSE="@FREE".

Ulrich

Re: [gentoo-project] changing the default of ACCEPT_LICENSE in portage

[Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn]

Ulrich Mueller schrieb:
> I suggest that we add exactly one "no-source-code" pseudo license.
> So binary-only BSD, MIT, etc. packages would be marked "BSD
> no-source-code" or "MIT no-source-code". Since the "no-source-code"
> license wouldn't be a member of the @FREE license group, installation
> of such packages would be prevented with ACCEPT_LICENSE="@FREE".

And no-source-code means that no public free licensed source code exists at
all, or is just not shipped in the distfile? Do we need to distinguish these
two? (I think this affects various -bin packages and fonts mostly)


Best regards,
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn

Re: [gentoo-project] changing the default of ACCEPT_LICENSE in portage

[Alexander Berntsen]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 25/07/13 23:12, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
> And no-source-code means that no public free licensed source code 
> exists at all, or is just not shipped in the distfile?
T

> Do we need to distinguish these two?
NIL

- -- 
Alexander
alexander@plaimi.net
http://plaimi.net/~alexander
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iF4EAREIAAYFAlHxls8ACgkQRtClrXBQc7XN6AD9GFqo81trl5h97MTn5zQJxzx2
xRSFwA88RzA0tECdnCcA/izSkUpaoZwCdeo3PKKo7dmxFyMZ0QV3r/U3j4oY7pSc
=TFUl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-project] changing the default of ACCEPT_LICENSE in portage

[Ulrich Mueller]

>>>>> On Thu, 25 Jul 2013, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:

> And no-source-code means that no public free licensed source code
> exists at all, or is just not shipped in the distfile? Do we need to
> distinguish these two? (I think this affects various -bin packages
> and fonts mostly)

"no-source-code" means that the section about source code of the Free
Software Definition ...

| In order for freedoms 1 and 3 (the freedom to make changes and the
| freedom to publish the changed versions) to be meaningful, you must
| have access to the source code of the program. Therefore,
| accessibility of source code is a necessary condition for free
| software. Obfuscated "source code" is not real source code and does
| not count as source code.

... or section 2 of the Open Source Definition ...

| The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in
| source code as well as compiled form. Where some form of a product
| is not distributed with source code, there must be a well-publicized
| means of obtaining the source code for no more than a reasonable
| reproduction cost preferably, downloading via the Internet without
| charge. The source code must be the preferred form in which a
| programmer would modify the program. Deliberately obfuscated source
| code is not allowed. Intermediate forms such as the output of a
| preprocessor or translator are not allowed.

... are not fulfilled. So a well-publicised location where the source
code can be freely accessed would qualify.

Ulrich

Re: [gentoo-project] changing the default of ACCEPT_LICENSE in portage

[Ulrich Mueller]

>>>>> On Thu, 25 Jul 2013, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:

> And no-source-code means that no public free licensed source code
> exists at all, or is just not shipped in the distfile? Do we need to
> distinguish these two? (I think this affects various -bin packages
> and fonts mostly)

BTW, do you have a list of packages that are affected by this?

Ulrich

Re: [gentoo-project] changing the default of ACCEPT_LICENSE in portage

[Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn]

Ulrich Mueller schrieb:
>> And no-source-code means that no public free licensed source code
>> exists at all, or is just not shipped in the distfile? Do we need to
>> distinguish these two? (I think this affects various -bin packages
>> and fonts mostly)
> 
> BTW, do you have a list of packages that are affected by this?

No, just casual observations. This list is not complete.

* media-fonts packages without fontforge USE flag don't build from source,
and sometimes the source cannot be located despite the font license
qualifying as free
* KDE and other artwork comes as PNG but lacks the (presumably SVG) source
from which it was generated
* Some firmware comes with source but requires special toolchain for building
* Some -bin packages are built by Gentoo projects (icedtea-bin,
libreoffice-bin) and we know where the source is
* Some -bin packages are built by upstreams (firefox-bin, openoffice-bin)
where it is maybe less clear which exact source it was built from. In the
case of firefox-bin there are additional trademark issues when redistributing
modified versions
* Some binary packages have binaries under restrictive licenses but source
code under free licenses (e.g. android-sdk-update-manager, sun-jmx)

I think at least for the first three points, Debian has already done
extensive work.


Best regards,
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn

Re: [gentoo-project] changing the default of ACCEPT_LICENSE in portage

[Alexander Berntsen]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

To sum up -- we've work to do. However, I don't think that is a good
reason to not perform the suggested change. rms told me recently that
GNU do not expect their endorsed distros to be perfect -- they merely
expect them to act when they discover faults. I propose we do the
same. Make the change -- try to fix things as we find them.
- -- 
Alexander
alexander@plaimi.net
http://plaimi.net/~alexander
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iF4EAREIAAYFAlH25GQACgkQRtClrXBQc7U3EAD/YKIPxuk3qYUAESgFJC/gbgbZ
X/h61fgi5Kp6F00n6IEA/i7IP5H8afjY/ZIg3NNKqn/RgaGpjlpeYw9mvhUIwPKj
=l1lv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-project] changing the default of ACCEPT_LICENSE in portage

[Andreas K. Huettel]

Am Montag, 29. Juli 2013, 23:35:28 schrieb Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn:
> * KDE and other artwork comes as PNG but lacks the (presumably SVG) source
> from which it was generated

At least for oxygen-icons the svg source is present in the original tarball 
(pulled in if USE=bindist is set). 

We repack it without the SVG to get things to a more manageable size for Joe 
Average User (29M instead of 280M).

-- 

Andreas K. Huettel
Gentoo Linux developer 
dilfridge@gentoo.org
http://www.akhuettel.de/

Re: [gentoo-project] changing the default of ACCEPT_LICENSE in portage

[Ulrich Mueller]

>>>>> On Thu, 25 Jul 2013, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:

> 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"

Thanks for bringing this up. I wanted to suggest this myself soon,
but I've still two blockers for it on my to-do list.

The first blocker is the cleanup of the "as-is" license that is not
quite complete. We're down from originally 700 packages to about 100
that are either difficult to fix or whose maintainers don't care.

> 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.

This is the second problem. I come back to my earlier suggestion [1]:

| We could easily solve this by adding a "no-source-code" tag to such
| packages. It would be included in the @BINARY-REDISTRIBUTABLE
| license group, but not in @FREE. So such packages would be excluded
| for users with ACCEPT_LICENSE="-* @FREE".

Ulrich

[1] http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/82536

Re: [gentoo-project] changing the default of ACCEPT_LICENSE in portage

[Dirkjan Ochtman]

On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 8:31 PM, hasufell <hasufell@gentoo.org> wrote:
> This is only about the _default_.
> We will have to change the handbook at "1.d. Licenses" [2] and might
> also make a news item.

Seems okayish to me. What kind of error message would you get if you
try emerge a non-free package?

Cheers,

Dirkjan

Re: [gentoo-project] changing the default of ACCEPT_LICENSE in portage

[Ian Stakenvicius]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 25/07/13 04:16 PM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 8:31 PM, hasufell <hasufell@gentoo.org>
> wrote:
>> This is only about the _default_. We will have to change the
>> handbook at "1.d. Licenses" [2] and might also make a news item.
> 
> Seems okayish to me. What kind of error message would you get if
> you try emerge a non-free package?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Dirkjan
> 

In portage, masked by LICENSE.  And maybe something about adding to
ACCEPT_LICENSE.   pretty much the same as keyword masks or USE masks..


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (GNU/Linux)

iF4EAREIAAYFAlHxiOUACgkQ2ugaI38ACPDQhwD/RdUZJZn42u9rezDIXHaInLFr
KtpjiwTjVoMCbUwv1HQBALTvOWOICGH1ke7wG4fksVjm6dO2USy+WLs7T7uDhwph
=r/T7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[gentoo-project] Re: changing the default of ACCEPT_LICENSE in portage

[Alexander Berntsen]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 26/07/13 18:48, Hanno Böck wrote:
>> Another more practical reason that needs consideration: Kernels.
>>  Currently, the default kernel.org-sources ship binary firmwares
>>  with unclear and mixed licenses. They are definitely nonfree. 
>> Gentoo sources also does (although it has a useflag to remove 
>> them). I don't really know how many people will be affected if we
>>  ship a blob-free kernel as the default. Same goes for 
>> linux-firmwares, which is required for a bunch of hardware. 
>> Especially wlan-cards hardly work without a binary firmware
>> blob.
Let's bring back libre-sources as a package. GNU already deblobs
Linux, so why should I have to do it myself every time. Another
argument is that deblobbing is very time consuming, particularly for
older hardware. I had a Lemote Yeelong on for three days deblobbing.

- --
Alexander
alexander@plaimi.net
http://plaimi.net/~alexander
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iF4EAREIAAYFAlHyw54ACgkQRtClrXBQc7UZRgEApA4Wh6F/Bzf92jUuHYDds/TC
+PXKBvNJz8tgjQwiUeQA/2/Qk1lg3t36b0wExP3eJvSonAirY2g/CY4Edno8BIuu
=mR4p
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: changing the default of ACCEPT_LICENSE in portage

[Matt Turner]

On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Alexander Berntsen
<alexander@plaimi.net> wrote:
> Let's bring back libre-sources as a package. GNU already deblobs
> Linux, so why should I have to do it myself every time. Another
> argument is that deblobbing is very time consuming, particularly for
> older hardware. I had a Lemote Yeelong on for three days deblobbing.

Why is deblobbing (what a stupid word) preferable to simply not
building things that require proprietary firmware?

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: changing the default of ACCEPT_LICENSE in portage

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 657 bytes --]

On Fri, 26 Jul 2013 13:50:15 -0700
Matt Turner <mattst88@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Alexander Berntsen
> <alexander@plaimi.net> wrote:
> > Let's bring back libre-sources as a package. GNU already deblobs
> > Linux, so why should I have to do it myself every time. Another
> > argument is that deblobbing is very time consuming, particularly for
> > older hardware. I had a Lemote Yeelong on for three days deblobbing.
> 
> Why is deblobbing (what a stupid word) preferable to simply not
> building things that require proprietary firmware?

Because it's not Freedom if you're free to choose.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: changing the default of ACCEPT_LICENSE in portage

[Alexander Berntsen]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 26/07/13 22:50, Matt Turner wrote:
> Why is deblobbing (what a stupid word) preferable to simply not 
> building things that require proprietary firmware?
Simply because I don't want that firmware; convenience.

Also,
  # emerge gentoo-sources
will fail unless you accept freedist.
- -- 
Alexander
alexander@plaimi.net
http://plaimi.net/~alexander
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iF4EAREIAAYFAlHy5xAACgkQRtClrXBQc7WySQD/S+rdaycx1Sy+7/aztiCr7PcP
IVyOFhdtvoq4Ra7Q53kBAIOR0EMrLUTmZIKCVh6fJ5A1chcNBNglXvKH9oAkV3vH
=lgp7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: changing the default of ACCEPT_LICENSE in portage

[Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 07/26/2013 05:16 PM, Alexander Berntsen wrote:
> On 26/07/13 22:50, Matt Turner wrote:
>> Why is deblobbing (what a stupid word) preferable to simply not
>> building things that require proprietary firmware?
> Simply because I don't want that firmware; convenience.
> 
> Also,
>   # emerge gentoo-sources
> will fail unless you accept freedist.
> 
> 

Of course since the kernel hasn't accepted new firmware packages for a
while now and they are all in linux-firmware maybe someone should make a
USE=deblob for linux firmware.  Personally I won't spend my time on it,
but if someone else wants to I'd accept the patches.

- -Zero
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
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=suIB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: changing the default of ACCEPT_LICENSE in portage

[Michał Górny]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Dnia 2013-07-26, o godz. 20:44:46
Alexander Berntsen <alexander@plaimi.net> napisał(a):

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
> 
> On 26/07/13 18:48, Hanno Böck wrote:
> >> Another more practical reason that needs consideration: Kernels.
> >>  Currently, the default kernel.org-sources ship binary firmwares
> >>  with unclear and mixed licenses. They are definitely nonfree. 
> >> Gentoo sources also does (although it has a useflag to remove 
> >> them). I don't really know how many people will be affected if we
> >>  ship a blob-free kernel as the default. Same goes for 
> >> linux-firmwares, which is required for a bunch of hardware. 
> >> Especially wlan-cards hardly work without a binary firmware
> >> blob.
> Let's bring back libre-sources as a package. GNU already deblobs
> Linux, so why should I have to do it myself every time. Another
> argument is that deblobbing is very time consuming, particularly for
> older hardware. I had a Lemote Yeelong on for three days deblobbing.

proxy-maint is waiting for you.

- -- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (GNU/Linux)
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=CocZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-project] changing the default of ACCEPT_LICENSE in portage

[Donnie Berkholz]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1769 bytes --]

On 20:31 Thu 25 Jul     , hasufell wrote:
> Gentoo has a social contract [1] which makes a lot of noise about free 
> software. However our default settings allow to use almost any kind of 
> non-free license such as "all-rights-reserved".
> 
> While I see nothing wrong with gentoo providing proprietary stuff (and 
> I have created a lot of such games ebuilds), 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"
> 
> This is only about the _default_. We will have to change the handbook 
> at "1.d. Licenses" [2] and might also make a news item.

Gentoo has been and should remain a pragmatic distribution rather than 
promoting a specific licensing philosophy to our users. We've always 
focused on providing *reasonable* rather than *restrictive* or *minimal* 
defaults, in the interest of keeping the barrier to entry lower and 
lessening the effort required to set up a functional Gentoo 
installation.

I don't see any conflict between requiring that our system packages be 
free software and providing the pragmatic experience that we also 
promise to our users in our philosophy:

"Put another way, the Gentoo philosophy is to create better tools. When a 
tool is doing its job perfectly, you might not even be very aware of its 
presence, because it does not interfere and make its presence known, nor 
does it force you to interact with it when you don't want it to. The 
tool serves the user rather than the user serving the tool."

-- 
Thanks,
Donnie

Donnie Berkholz
Council Member / Sr. Developer, Gentoo Linux <http://dberkholz.com>
Analyst, RedMonk <http://redmonk.com/dberkholz/>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] changing the default of ACCEPT_LICENSE in portage

[hasufell]

On 07/30/2013 05:08 PM, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> On 20:31 Thu 25 Jul     , hasufell wrote:
>> Gentoo has a social contract [1] which makes a lot of noise about free 
>> software. However our default settings allow to use almost any kind of 
>> non-free license such as "all-rights-reserved".
>>
>> While I see nothing wrong with gentoo providing proprietary stuff (and 
>> I have created a lot of such games ebuilds), 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"
>>
>> This is only about the _default_. We will have to change the handbook 
>> at "1.d. Licenses" [2] and might also make a news item.
> 
> Gentoo has been and should remain a pragmatic distribution rather than 
> promoting a specific licensing philosophy to our users.

We are already doing that by declaring:
"Gentoo is and will remain Free Software".

> We've always 
> focused on providing *reasonable* rather than *restrictive* or *minimal* 
> defaults,

Setting @FREE as a default _is_ reasonable, because it underlines what
is already in our social contract and might help to make people more
aware of it at extremely low cost.

> in the interest of keeping the barrier to entry lower and 
> lessening the effort required to set up a functional Gentoo 
> installation.
> 

That argument has already been brought up here and it doesn't make much
sense in this context. It's an effort of changing/adding a _single_ line
in make.conf and is even documented in the handbook.

> I don't see any conflict between requiring that our system packages be 
> free software and providing the pragmatic experience that we also 
> promise to our users in our philosophy:

I don't see any conflict between requiring the user to accept unfree
licenses explicitly and our philosophy.
In fact, we are already forcing interaction with that variable via "-@EULA".

Re: [gentoo-project] changing the default of ACCEPT_LICENSE in portage

[Zac Medico]

On 07/30/2013 08:28 AM, hasufell wrote:
> I don't see any conflict between requiring the user to accept unfree
> licenses explicitly and our philosophy.

I'm not arguing this point.

> In fact, we are already forcing interaction with that variable via "-@EULA".

The only reason for this is that it is a means to ensure that the EULA
will is displayed by default, in order to respect the wishes of the
copyright owners.
-- 
Thanks,
Zac

Re: [gentoo-project] changing the default of ACCEPT_LICENSE in portage

[Zac Medico]

On 07/30/2013 08:56 AM, Zac Medico wrote:
> On 07/30/2013 08:28 AM, hasufell wrote:
>> I don't see any conflict between requiring the user to accept unfree
>> licenses explicitly and our philosophy.
> 
> I'm not arguing this point.
> 
>> In fact, we are already forcing interaction with that variable via "-@EULA".
> 
> The only reason for this is that it is a means to ensure that the EULA
> will is displayed by default, in order to respect the wishes of the
> copyright owners.

For those not aware of the history, it should also be noted that we used
to have a check_license function in eutils.eclass explicitly for this
purpose, and ebuilds that used it had to set PROPERTIES="interactive"
which was much more annoying that the license masking approach that
replaced it.
-- 
Thanks,
Zac

Re: [gentoo-project] changing the default of ACCEPT_LICENSE in portage

[Matt Turner]

On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 8:28 AM, hasufell <hasufell@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 07/30/2013 05:08 PM, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
>> I don't see any conflict between requiring that our system packages be
>> free software and providing the pragmatic experience that we also
>> promise to our users in our philosophy:
>
> I don't see any conflict between requiring the user to accept unfree
> licenses explicitly and our philosophy.
> In fact, we are already forcing interaction with that variable via "-@EULA".

... I think Donnie's agreeing with you.

Re: [gentoo-project] changing the default of ACCEPT_LICENSE in portage

[Jeroen Roovers]

On Tue, 30 Jul 2013 17:28:20 +0200
hasufell <hasufell@gentoo.org> wrote:

> > Gentoo has been and should remain a pragmatic distribution rather
> > than promoting a specific licensing philosophy to our users.
> 
> We are already doing that by declaring:
> "Gentoo is and will remain Free Software".

I disagree with your interpretation. This text has always been about
the software Gentoo produces, not about the distro of multi-license
packages that this software allows you to compile. So it's about the
package manager, ebuilds, eclasses, helper tools, boot scripts and so
on that the Gentoo Project authors.


     jer

Re: Re: [gentoo-project] changing the default of ACCEPT_LICENSE in portage

[Andreas K. Huettel]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1022 bytes --]

Am Mittwoch 31 Juli 2013, 01:17:50 schrieb Jeroen Roovers:
> On Tue, 30 Jul 2013 17:28:20 +0200
> 
> hasufell <hasufell@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > Gentoo has been and should remain a pragmatic distribution rather
> > > than promoting a specific licensing philosophy to our users.
> > 
> > We are already doing that by declaring:
> > "Gentoo is and will remain Free Software".
> 
> I disagree with your interpretation. This text has always been about
> the software Gentoo produces, not about the distro of multi-license
> packages that this software allows you to compile. So it's about the
> package manager, ebuilds, eclasses, helper tools, boot scripts and so
> on that the Gentoo Project authors.
> 

Actually, Jer makes a very good point here which I would like to 
wholeheartedly support.

I have always found it a positive side of Gentoo that regarding the software 
which we package we focus on practicalities instead of ideology.

-- 
Andreas K. Huettel
Gentoo Linux developer
kde, sci, arm, tex, printing, council

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 966 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] changing the default of ACCEPT_LICENSE in portage

[hasufell]

On 07/31/2013 01:27 PM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> Am Mittwoch 31 Juli 2013, 01:17:50 schrieb Jeroen Roovers:
>> On Tue, 30 Jul 2013 17:28:20 +0200
>>
>> hasufell <hasufell@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>>> Gentoo has been and should remain a pragmatic distribution rather
>>>> than promoting a specific licensing philosophy to our users.
>>>
>>> We are already doing that by declaring:
>>> "Gentoo is and will remain Free Software".
>>
>> I disagree with your interpretation. This text has always been about
>> the software Gentoo produces, not about the distro of multi-license
>> packages that this software allows you to compile. So it's about the
>> package manager, ebuilds, eclasses, helper tools, boot scripts and so
>> on that the Gentoo Project authors.
>>
> 
> Actually, Jer makes a very good point here which I would like to 
> wholeheartedly support.
> 
> I have always found it a positive side of Gentoo that regarding the software 
> which we package we focus on practicalities instead of ideology.
> 

Free software is more practical and gentoo in it's very nature proves
that point.

Re: [gentoo-project] changing the default of ACCEPT_LICENSE in portage

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 424 bytes --]

On Wed, 31 Jul 2013 13:30:54 +0200
hasufell <hasufell@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > I have always found it a positive side of Gentoo that regarding the
> > software which we package we focus on practicalities instead of
> > ideology.
> 
> Free software is more practical and gentoo in it's very nature proves
> that point.

Not being able to use most commonly available hardware is not practical.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: Re: [gentoo-project] changing the default of ACCEPT_LICENSE in portage

[Andreas K. Huettel]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 496 bytes --]

Am Mittwoch 31 Juli 2013, 13:30:54 schrieb hasufell:
> On 07/31/2013 01:27 PM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> >
> > I have always found it a positive side of Gentoo that regarding the
> > software which we package we focus on practicalities instead of ideology.
> 
> Free software is more practical and gentoo in it's very nature proves
> that point.

We're not Debian, and that is a good thing™.

-- 
Andreas K. Huettel
Gentoo Linux developer
kde, sci, arm, tex, printing, council

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 966 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] changing the default of ACCEPT_LICENSE in portage

[hasufell]

On 07/31/2013 01:46 PM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> Am Mittwoch 31 Juli 2013, 13:30:54 schrieb hasufell:
>> On 07/31/2013 01:27 PM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
>>>
>>> I have always found it a positive side of Gentoo that regarding the
>>> software which we package we focus on practicalities instead of ideology.
>>
>> Free software is more practical and gentoo in it's very nature proves
>> that point.
> 
> We're not Debian, and that is a good thing™.
> 

You miss the point. This thread is not about banning ebuilds which let
you install unfree software.

Get back to topic.

Re: [gentoo-project] changing the default of ACCEPT_LICENSE in portage

[Rich Freeman]

On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 7:50 AM, hasufell <hasufell@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 07/31/2013 01:46 PM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
>>
>> We're not Debian, and that is a good thing™.
>>
>
> You miss the point. This thread is not about banning ebuilds which let
> you install unfree software.
>

You're thinking of gNewSense, or one of the 47 distros on the FSF
webpage that nobody has heard about.  :)

I won't throw in my own two sense.  Personally, I'm on the fence here.
 I think this is a matter of values and largely boils down to ESR vs
RMS to some extent.  I would say that those who want to make a change
probably have the burden of justifying the change.  You don't need to
explain your rationale - you've already done a great job with that.  I
think the bigger hurdle is whether the community buys in, though this
will only impact new users.

If there were some easy way to take a poll it might be interesting to
see the results.  Dare I suggest a forum post?

To be constructive, I think I'll try building a desktop in a VM and
just see what the day-to-day impact of your proposal actually is.
Nvidia drivers really only come to mind as the biggest stumbling block
for most - the days of proprietary codecs and such are mostly behind
us I think.  Those who oppose the change might point out specific
"killer apps" that this gets in the way of.

Rich

Re: [gentoo-project] changing the default of ACCEPT_LICENSE in portage

[Jeff Horelick]

On 31 July 2013 11:18, Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 7:50 AM, hasufell <hasufell@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> On 07/31/2013 01:46 PM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
>>>
>>> We're not Debian, and that is a good thing™.
>>>
>>
>> You miss the point. This thread is not about banning ebuilds which let
>> you install unfree software.
>>
>
> You're thinking of gNewSense, or one of the 47 distros on the FSF
> webpage that nobody has heard about.  :)
>
> I won't throw in my own two sense.  Personally, I'm on the fence here.
>  I think this is a matter of values and largely boils down to ESR vs
> RMS to some extent.  I would say that those who want to make a change
> probably have the burden of justifying the change.  You don't need to
> explain your rationale - you've already done a great job with that.  I
> think the bigger hurdle is whether the community buys in, though this
> will only impact new users.
>
> If there were some easy way to take a poll it might be interesting to
> see the results.  Dare I suggest a forum post?
>
> To be constructive, I think I'll try building a desktop in a VM and
> just see what the day-to-day impact of your proposal actually is.
> Nvidia drivers really only come to mind as the biggest stumbling block
> for most - the days of proprietary codecs and such are mostly behind
> us I think.  Those who oppose the change might point out specific
> "killer apps" that this gets in the way of.
>
> Rich
>

I think the biggest hurdle for most users will not be nVidia drivers
or anything like that, but firmware. Be it for audio cards, ethernet
cards, wifi cards or whatnot. Not to mention, the kernel, with -deblob
is under the freedist license which is not in the @FREE group.

Re: [gentoo-project] changing the default of ACCEPT_LICENSE in portage

[Ian Stakenvicius]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Just to bring the list up to speed -- in a conversation in #gentoo-dev
I proposed that what we do, instead of setting the default in
make.globals, is to leave that default as-is and to add in the stage3
make.conf files the lines:

# [some comment that says what this is and to look in the handbook ]
ACCEPT_LICENSE="-* @FREE"
# firmware in the linux kernel needs additional licenses, so add
# them by default.  Please remove if you do not wish to accept.
ACCEPT_LICENSE+="freedist"


... by putting it in make.conf by default, it #1 brings setting the
license variable to the forefront of installation (users see it right
away when they edit make.conf), and #2 doesn't affect existing users.
 The second line, allowing for installation of a blobbed kernel, could
be removed but I would suggest it be kept just for user convenience --
and with it being set in make.conf I think it is more visible and
easier to deal with (ie turning off if the end-user doesn't want it)
than setting it in profiles or other places.

Thoughts?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (GNU/Linux)

iF4EAREIAAYFAlH5NjMACgkQ2ugaI38ACPCzjwD9GyJK0GM2oXno1TxK29+Wc71Y
0SHyI9ph3VwdxDbHQb4A/37We451xKT60xpBVC4RByfXCHYJ9rj/fSZyuZS6oWse
=UlS+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-project] changing the default of ACCEPT_LICENSE in portage

[Zac Medico]

On 07/31/2013 09:07 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> Just to bring the list up to speed -- in a conversation in #gentoo-dev
> I proposed that what we do, instead of setting the default in
> make.globals, is to leave that default as-is and to add in the stage3
> make.conf files the lines:
> 
> # [some comment that says what this is and to look in the handbook ]
> ACCEPT_LICENSE="-* @FREE"
> # firmware in the linux kernel needs additional licenses, so add
> # them by default.  Please remove if you do not wish to accept.
> ACCEPT_LICENSE+="freedist"
> 
> 
> ... by putting it in make.conf by default, it #1 brings setting the
> license variable to the forefront of installation (users see it right
> away when they edit make.conf), and #2 doesn't affect existing users.
>  The second line, allowing for installation of a blobbed kernel, could
> be removed but I would suggest it be kept just for user convenience --
> and with it being set in make.conf I think it is more visible and
> easier to deal with (ie turning off if the end-user doesn't want it)
> than setting it in profiles or other places.
> 
> Thoughts?

Yeah, this approach seems like it is often the friendliest way to change
defaults (applies to the recently discussed LC_MESSAGES change as well).
-- 
Thanks,
Zac

Re: [gentoo-project] changing the default of ACCEPT_LICENSE in portage

[Rich Freeman]

On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 12:07 PM, Ian Stakenvicius <axs@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> # [some comment that says what this is and to look in the handbook ]
> ACCEPT_LICENSE="-* @FREE"
> # firmware in the linux kernel needs additional licenses, so add
> # them by default.  Please remove if you do not wish to accept.
> ACCEPT_LICENSE+="freedist"

++

I don't like the idea that a kernel can't be installed by default
(requiring either a USE or ACCEPT_LICENSE override).  That impacts
every install.  Given the choice of the default being either accepting
freedist or using deblob I think the former is more sane.  The fact
that we give users a choice is a lot more than most distros do.

And by all means call it out in the handbook so that new users not
only have the choice, but understand it.

Rich

Re: [gentoo-project] changing the default of ACCEPT_LICENSE in portage

[Ulrich Mueller]

>>>>> On Wed, 31 Jul 2013, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:

> Just to bring the list up to speed -- in a conversation in #gentoo-dev
> I proposed that what we do, instead of setting the default in
> make.globals, is to leave that default as-is and to add in the stage3
> make.conf files the lines:

> # [some comment that says what this is and to look in the handbook ]
> ACCEPT_LICENSE="-* @FREE"
> # firmware in the linux kernel needs additional licenses, so add
> # them by default.  Please remove if you do not wish to accept.
> ACCEPT_LICENSE+="freedist"

I don't like to enable freedist globally for all packages (and if it's
only because I fear that it would invite devs to abuse "freedist" in
the same way as they abused "as-is"). So either this should be moved
to package.license, or we should create an extra license label that is
used exclusively for kernel firmware.

freedist is a really bad approximation for the complicated situation
anyway. It is known that some of the firmware is not redistributable
at all.

Ulrich

Re: [gentoo-project] changing the default of ACCEPT_LICENSE in portage

[Ian Stakenvicius]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 31/07/13 03:58 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 31 Jul 2013, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> 
>> Just to bring the list up to speed -- in a conversation in
>> #gentoo-dev I proposed that what we do, instead of setting the
>> default in make.globals, is to leave that default as-is and to
>> add in the stage3 make.conf files the lines:
> 
>> # [some comment that says what this is and to look in the
>> handbook ] ACCEPT_LICENSE="-* @FREE" # firmware in the linux
>> kernel needs additional licenses, so add # them by default.
>> Please remove if you do not wish to accept. 
>> ACCEPT_LICENSE+="freedist"
> 
> I don't like to enable freedist globally for all packages (and if
> it's only because I fear that it would invite devs to abuse
> "freedist" in the same way as they abused "as-is"). So either this
> should be moved to package.license, or we should create an extra
> license label that is used exclusively for kernel firmware.
> 
> freedist is a really bad approximation for the complicated
> situation anyway. It is known that some of the firmware is not
> redistributable at all.
> 
> Ulrich
> 

I was thinking the same thing -- a separate license label for
linux-firmware and kernel packages, that is -- there's over 170
packages right now that have 'freedist' in their LICENSE var..



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (GNU/Linux)

iF4EAREIAAYFAlH5bMQACgkQ2ugaI38ACPA4XgD9HkLxqQ5XykfpcRX8AegADj0x
X2OBVtXWpPyNXB2RYNEA/20dtGcLbTCg+Q/uveHU3hgcq/AgqQTWtz+dN+m0YIU9
=9pLu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-project] changing the default of ACCEPT_LICENSE in portage

[Ulrich Mueller]

>>>>> On Wed, 31 Jul 2013, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:

> On 31/07/13 03:58 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> freedist is a really bad approximation for the complicated
>> situation anyway. It is known that some of the firmware is not
>> redistributable at all.

> I was thinking the same thing -- a separate license label for
> linux-firmware and kernel packages, that is -- there's over 170
> packages right now that have 'freedist' in their LICENSE var..

I was thinking about something along the lines of:

   Firmware blobs distributed with Linux. All rights to these blobs
   are owned by their respective copyright and patent holders.
   Ask upstream for details on licensing and distribution terms.

And if it wasn't the kernel, I'd say that we need mirror restriction. ;-)

Ulrich

Re: [gentoo-project] changing the default of ACCEPT_LICENSE in portage

[Rich Freeman]

On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 3:58 PM, Ulrich Mueller <ulm@gentoo.org> wrote:
> freedist is a really bad approximation for the complicated situation
> anyway. It is known that some of the firmware is not redistributable
> at all.

I think that this is probably the better solution.  Freedist sounds
more like a license group than a license.

Rich

Re: [gentoo-project] changing the default of ACCEPT_LICENSE in portage

[Ulrich Mueller]

>>>>> On Wed, 31 Jul 2013, Rich Freeman wrote:

> To be constructive, I think I'll try building a desktop in a VM and
> just see what the day-to-day impact of your proposal actually is.
> Nvidia drivers really only come to mind as the biggest stumbling block
> for most - the days of proprietary codecs and such are mostly behind
> us I think.  Those who oppose the change might point out specific
> "killer apps" that this gets in the way of.

I'm using ACCEPT_LICENSE="-* @FREE" since several months now, without
problems. There are about 25 packages that I accept in addition in my
package.license, though nothing essential (more "nice to have" stuff
like games or fonts). And in the case of my laptop, also some
firmware.

Ulrich

Re: [gentoo-project] changing the default of ACCEPT_LICENSE in portage

[Ulrich Mueller]

>>>>> On Tue, 30 Jul 2013, Donnie Berkholz wrote:

> I don't see any conflict between requiring that our system packages
> be free software and providing the pragmatic experience that we also
> promise to our users in our philosophy:

> "Put another way, the Gentoo philosophy is to create better tools.
> When a tool is doing its job perfectly, you might not even be very
> aware of its presence, because it does not interfere and make its
> presence known, nor does it force you to interact with it when you
> don't want it to. The tool serves the user rather than the user
> serving the tool."

This is quoted grossly out of context. In the paragraph preceding it,
you can read the following:

"Our tools should be a joy to use, and should help the user to
appreciate the richness of the Linux and free software community, and
the flexibility of free software. This is only possible when the tool
is designed to reflect and transmit the will of the user, and leave
the possibilities open as to the final form of the raw materials (the
source code.) If the tool forces the user to do things a particular
way, then the tool is working against, rather than for, the user."

RMS has said it more pointedly:

"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master - and if you use the
program, he is your master."

Ulrich

Re: [gentoo-project] changing the default of ACCEPT_LICENSE in portage

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 963 bytes --]

On Tue, 30 Jul 2013 18:09:09 +0200
Ulrich Mueller <ulm@gentoo.org> wrote:
> This is quoted grossly out of context. In the paragraph preceding it,
> you can read the following:
> 
> "Our tools should be a joy to use, and should help the user to
> appreciate the richness of the Linux and free software community, and
> the flexibility of free software. This is only possible when the tool
> is designed to reflect and transmit the will of the user, and leave
> the possibilities open as to the final form of the raw materials (the
> source code.) If the tool forces the user to do things a particular
> way, then the tool is working against, rather than for, the user."
> 
> RMS has said it more pointedly:
> 
> "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master - and if you use the
> program, he is your master."

Right. No-one will truly be Free until everyone is required to use
GNU Hurd on the GNU Free Hardware Platform.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] changing the default of ACCEPT_LICENSE in portage

[hasufell]

On 07/30/2013 06:13 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Jul 2013 18:09:09 +0200
> Ulrich Mueller <ulm@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> This is quoted grossly out of context. In the paragraph preceding it,
>> you can read the following:
>>
>> "Our tools should be a joy to use, and should help the user to
>> appreciate the richness of the Linux and free software community, and
>> the flexibility of free software. This is only possible when the tool
>> is designed to reflect and transmit the will of the user, and leave
>> the possibilities open as to the final form of the raw materials (the
>> source code.) If the tool forces the user to do things a particular
>> way, then the tool is working against, rather than for, the user."
>>
>> RMS has said it more pointedly:
>>
>> "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master - and if you use the
>> program, he is your master."
> 
> Right. No-one will truly be Free until everyone is required to use
> GNU Hurd on the GNU Free Hardware Platform.
> 

Go away, troll.

Re: [gentoo-project] changing the default of ACCEPT_LICENSE in portage

[Andreas K. Huettel]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1010 bytes --]

Am Donnerstag 25 Juli 2013, 20:31:19 schrieb hasufell:
> Gentoo has a social contract [1] which makes a lot of noise about free
> software.
> However our default settings allow to use almost any kind of non-free
> license such as "all-rights-reserved".
> 
> While I see nothing wrong with gentoo providing proprietary stuff (and
> I have created a lot of such games ebuilds), 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"
> 
> This is only about the _default_.

The only effect of this new _default_ will be that people
1) start complaining
2) read up somewhere in the forums
3) set ACCEPT_LICENSE="*" without further thinking.

This is NOT what we want. 

In my opinion we should set the pre-defined license filter as tolerant as 
possible. Anyone who wants to narrow it down should do it himself.


-- 
Andreas K. Huettel
Gentoo Linux developer
kde, sci, arm, tex, printing

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 966 bytes --]