On Feb 3, 2:15 pm, William Stein <wst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 1:27 PM, Jason Grout <jason-s...@creativetrax.com>
> wrote:
<SNIP>
> > 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.
Phrasing the question with a negative is not going to make this any
easier :)
> Justification: (1) My understanding is that interactive license
> agreements are no more legally binding than non-interactive ones.
That is not the issue at all. This has nothing to do with the Sage
project enforcing licenses.
> (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.
Well, if we had proposal 2 this would be an argument, but as is there
is no way to differentiate between free and non-free spkgs. And in
fact the issue is more complicated, i.e. while kash is free as in
beer, but not free as in freedom it does not restrict the user what
area they are doing research in or whom they are affiliated with.
> (3) Interactive license agreements make
> automatic scripted installation of software difficult.
This can be trivially worked around by using env variables for
testing.
> (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.
The GPL does not state in any way that if you work for MS or MSR that
you are not allowed to use this piece of software. MSR is for some
reason I do not truly understand (I have heard the reasons, but they
do not convince me, but that doesn't matter) prevented from using
software licensed under the GPL V3, but that is a completely different
situation than the Nauty license.
> VOTE:
> [ ] Yes
> [ ] No
I voted above.
> 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:
[ x ] Yes
[ ] No
At least Nauty. I don't think any other spkg is restricted aside from
potentially the bits in the gap-essentials.spkg that involve Nauty. It
would be good to have non-free to differentiate the free spkgs and
move everything that is not GPL compatible that would be potentially
linked to a Sage component like graphviz for example to non-free.
> -- William
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
