William Stein wrote: > 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
Yes. > > 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 Yes. Jason --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
