For the bean-counters, that's a -1 to interactive crap. On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 2:09 PM, Tom Boothby <tomas.boot...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I definitely think that a passive approach is better. Debian, for example, > has their repositories split into "free" and "non-free". I believe that > this would be the best solution to this problem. > > Click-through interactive licensing agreements are no stronger than passive > licenses. The law is the law, and claiming ignorance is never a defense > unless the law / license is deliberately obscured. Since we're not > obliterating the license file, if we put the package into a non-free repo > there should be no problems. > > > On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 1:42 PM, mabshoff <mabsh...@googlemail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> On Feb 3, 1:27 pm, Jason Grout <jason-s...@creativetrax.com> wrote: >> > There is quite a bit of discussion going on at tickethttp:// >> trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/4890about nauty's interactive >> > installation that demands that a user agree to a license. I originally >> > made that spkg and the result of the discussion at that time was that an >> > interactive license was needed. There is strong disapproval of having >> > an interactive license now. The end of the discussion on the ticket >> > points to having a thread on sage-devel to address the question. For >> > your convenience, here is the last comment: >> > >> > "> I would still not call this interactive error message "stupid" since >> > > it was done deliberately. >> > >> > "I think interactive license agreements are annoying. They are all done >> > deliberately. >> > >> > "> Nauty is not only non-free, but its license prohibits its use for >> > > works involving primarily military applications, so this is not about >> > > non-GPL vs. GPL. >> > >> > "Nauty is free as in beer, but the free license it is under is not >> > "libre" i.e., not OSI approved and not GPL-compatible. Nauty's license >> > is: "Permission is hereby given for use and/or distribution with the >> > exception of sale for profit or application with nontrivial military >> > significance." There are essentially no other restrictions. >> > >> > "Since we have a fundamental disagreement here, this will need to be >> > discussed on sage-devel and possibly voted on." >> > >> > Note that in this case, apparently nauty is included in an (optional?) >> > package we install with gap, so at least there is inconsistency here. >> >> The fact that nauty is part of some gap related spkg and we do not >> have a warning there does not mean that we should proceed the same way >> with the nauty.spkg also. I would in fact vote for either removing >> nauty from the gap-essentials.spkg (unless it is only the bindings) or >> also requiring an iterative license. A lot of things ended up in the >> essential gap.spkg that these days would not even make it into Sage >> without a lot of mandatory cleanup. >> >> > Does someone (William?, mabshoff?) want to explicitly state the proposal >> > we are voting on? >> > >> > Personally, I don't care either way. I guess I've been weaned off of >> > nauty for a while now, thanks to Robert's good code :). >> >> This is not free vs. non-free, the point it that no other piece of >> free or commercial software either in the optional/experimental spkg >> repo or otherwise available via a pexpect interface does not restrict >> the user in any way on what to use that piece of software for. Nauty >> does restrict the user. We do have a significant number of users who >> the nauty restriction does apply to and I take offense of having the >> ticket summary contain the word "stupid". The decision to make the >> license agreement interactive was made after deliberate discussion on >> sage-devel and the ticket IIRC. And people installing spkgs do not >> first do a license audit, so the interactive spkg-install prevents >> anyone from accidentally installing nauty when they should not. >> >> So I vote to keep the license agreement, but we can make it so that if >> some env variable (maybe SAGE_MILITARY_USE_OK == yes) is set where no >> one can claim to have set it by accident does skip the interactive >> portion of spkg-install. The same should apply to whatever gap related >> spkg that contains either nauty or nauty bindings and we should >> consider splitting it off the spkg to make things simpler license >> wise. >> >> > Thanks, >> > >> > Jason >> >> Cheers, >> >> Michael >> >> >> > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sage-devel-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
