On Feb 3, 2009, at 2:15 PM, 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: > [X] Yes > [ ] No
As in, it should not be interactive. > 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 I don't like the keyword "restricted" but given that Sage is a distribution of free software, I think we should make a distinction. Sage -i nauty-x.y should give an error (not just "package not found" but also "perhaps it has a more restrictive license, try ..." We should probably do this with everything that's not GPL-compatible (open source/free or not) just for simplicity. - Robert --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
