On 01/07/2010 05:46 AM, Hanno Böck wrote:
I think the GPL-compatible set makes barely sense.
++
Difference between OSI and FSF approved: ... I think the definitions
of FSF and OSI are pretty much the same, ... So I'd like it much more
to have one big "This is free and open source software" set.
--
I think that we should make the license groups as objective as possible.
EVERYBODY can agree that such a license is or isn't OSI approved or
FSF approved - whether they hate or love the FSF/etc.
By all means every gentoo dev is welcome to post on their blog "if you
want free and open source software put this in your ACCEPT_LICENSE" -
and everybody can post comments on the blog calling them the next saint
of the Church of GNU, or the devil incarnate. Let's just keep the
portage tree to the facts.
Now groups that are fairly legally objective like
"redistributable-without-modification" I think are useful. They could
be useful in doing QA checks on RESTRICT=mirror, for example. However,
let's try to stick with simple objective criteria that both people who
hate a license and love it can agree on.
What bites me is the man-pages issue. Is it really the case that
there's no free (as in freedom) man-pages package? Maybe then we
should provide an option to install the base system without
man-pages?
I guess strictly-speaking man-pages aren't essential as part of system,
but they'd seem like a big omission to leave out. Unless we want a
free-only profile (nobody seems to want to fully support this), I think
that the better option is this:
Write up instructions on how to have a free gentoo install and put it on
your blog or whatever. If they've good enough maybe we can have the doc
team make it official (gotta consider support issues here).
You can always stick the man-pages in package_provided or whatever so
that portage doesn't try to install it.
You can also make your own profile, and post instructions for the world
to see. Again, break it and you get to keep the pieces and all that...
