On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 1:27 PM, Jason Grout <jason-s...@creativetrax.com> wrote:
>
> There is quite a bit of discussion going on at ticket
> http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/4890 about 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.
>
> Does someone (William?, mabshoff?) want to explicitly state the proposal
> we are voting on?
PROPOSAL 1: When installing official Sage spkg's, Sage should not
interactively ask the user to agree to licenses.
Justification: (1) My understanding is that interactive license
agreements are no more legally binding than non-interactive ones. (2)
Debian/Ubuntu doesn't require interactive license agreements --
instead they require the user to add the non-free repo to
/etc/apt/sources.list. (3) Interactive license agreements make
automatic scripted installation of software difficult. (4) Where do
we draw the line? I just gave a talk at Microsoft a few minutes ago,
and for them, installing GPL'd software is far far more dangerous than
installing Nauty.
VOTE:
[ ] Yes
[ ] No
PROPOSAL 2: We add a restricted repository, and make installing spkg's
in it require a non-default option, e.g.,
sage -i -restricted nauty-x.y
The nauty, Kash, and several other spkg's would be moved there.
VOTE:
[ ] Yes
[ ] No
-- William
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
