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-interactiv
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 7:47 PM, David Joyner wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 5:15 PM, William Stein wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 1:27 PM, Jason Grout
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Since we have a fundamental disagreement here, this will need to be
>>> discussed on sage-devel and possibly
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 5:15 PM, William Stein wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 1:27 PM, Jason Grout
> 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 "pick
On Feb 3, 2:15 pm, William Stein wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 1:27 PM, Jason Grout
> wrote:
> > 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 us
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
On Feb 3, 2:09 pm, Tom Boothby wrote:
> I definitely think that a passive approach is better. Debian, for example,
> has their repositories split into "free" and "non-free". I believe that
> this would be the best solution to this problem.
>
> Click-through interactive licensing agreements ar
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 1:27 PM, Jason Grout wrote:
>
> There is quite a bit of discussion going on at ticket
> http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/4890 about nauty's interactive
> installation that demands that a user agree to a license. I originally
> made that spkg and the result of the
For the bean-counters, that's a -1 to interactive crap.
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 2:09 PM, Tom Boothby wrote:
> I definitely think that a passive approach is better. Debian, for example,
> has their repositories split into "free" and "non-free". I believe that
> this would be the best solution to
I definitely think that a passive approach is better. Debian, for example,
has their repositories split into "free" and "non-free". I believe that
this would be the best solution to this problem.
Click-through interactive licensing agreements are no stronger than passive
licenses. The law is th
On Feb 3, 1:27 pm, Jason Grout wrote:
> There is quite a bit of discussion going on at
> tickethttp://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/4890about nauty's interactive
> installation that demands that a user agree to a license. I originally
> made that spkg and the result of the discussion at
10 matches
Mail list logo
