On 2019-02-12 20:40, Alec Warner wrote:
> This is why I continue to advocate for a deliberate choice based on
> the social contract ("Gentoo is and will remain Free and thus the
> default should be "-* @FREE" rather than some kind of objective 
> choice based on 'consequences'; which I think just muddle the point.

Sorry, I don't get this. You understand that a change from

> ACCEPT_LICENSE="* -@EULA" (active today)

to

> ACCEPT_LICENSE="-* @FREE"

is the same like

> ACCEPT_LICENSE="@FREE"

Isn't it ("-*" isn't needed; at the moment we say "don't prompt for _any
license_ except licenses from @EUAL group")?


And I also don't understand people discussing consequences:

1) There's no hard block.

2) Existing systems won't break because PM will prompt to accept any
license of installed packages not yet accepted. Even in case you will
reject that prompt, your existing system won't break (you won't get new
updates for those packages, that's all).

3) New users will have to learn about ACCEPT_LICENSE earlier, that's all.

4) There's also no plan to force projects like releng to stick to
ACCEPT_LICENSE default. If any project wants to use package X which
requires license Y they are free to do so (of course you have to comply
with law, only content which we are allowed to redistribute...).

5) This change will basically only affect stage3. And ulm already did an
audit of stage3 and aside kernel sources (due to outdated eclass) all
currently included packages are only using licenses from @FREE group. So
if you want to, you could say, we are only adjust ACCEPT_LICENSE to
licenses we are actually using in our stage3.


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