On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 7:47 PM, David Joyner <wdjoy...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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.
I did recently (in the last few months) added the option so that sage -i http://url/to/an/spkg works. Thus installing an optional spkg from somewhere else isn't so hard. That said, there's no easy way to list the optional spkg's available in random places, and of course such spkg's would be likely to stop working, break, etc. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
