On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 5:15 PM, William Stein <wst...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 1:27 PM, Jason Grout <jason-s...@creativetrax.com> > wrote: >> >> >> >> "Since we have a fundamental disagreement here, this will need to be >> discussed on sage-devel and possibly voted on." >> >>
The reasoning below applies not just to "picky" packages such as nauty but also possible non-commercial use ones (like kash/kant?). >> > > PROPOSAL 1: When installing official Sage spkg's, Sage should not > interactively ask the user to agree to licenses. +1 if it is not possible to create an interactive step in the compile process (so, after download and before the picky program is first used, the user must agree to something). -1, regretfully. This is the safest way to avoid a copyright infringement charge. > > Justification: (1) My understanding is that interactive license > agreements are no more legally binding than non-interactive ones. (2) This is unclear to me. If it were legally established then there would be no need for EULAs. > 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. First, maybe grape (which includes nauty) should be removed from gap_packages, since that should not contain any picky programs. If others agree, I will do this since I created that optional package. > > VOTE: > [ ] Yes > [ x ] 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 > [ x ] No > I actually vote that all picky packages be moved offsite. Sage has the ability to install a spkg from any server (I think - I've not tested this), so if we canot agree to a EULA, or get written approval from the copyright holder allowing us to redistribute without a EULA, why risk the sage machines with a copyright infringement charge? However, I vote yes for all picky programs where we have gotten written approval from the copyright holder allowing us to redistribute without a EULA. Unless I am misunderstanding something, I think this opinion is consistent with both WIlliam's and Michael's positions. > -- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
