[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: An idea for RPM -> License Agreement support

On 30/05/07, Hikaru Amano <kagesenshi 87 gmail com> wrote:
On 5/30/07, Chris Brown <snecklifter gmail com> wrote:
> I doubt the reason Sun Java supplies their installer as an executable binary
> is so that the license is read and agreed to. All packages are subject to

yes it is .. after you select agree .. there'll be an RPM in the
current folder .. and you can install it as usual using rpm -i ..
(though the bin file automically done it for you)

Sun's Java is the only package I know of then that uses wrapping of an rpm in a binary file simply in order to force users to read the license agreement. Its a bit of a non-issue anyway what with the releasing of Java under the GPL. 

> license review before inclusion into Fedora and as you agree/acknowledge
> that Fedora is provided as a distribution under the GPLv2 at install time I
> think license issues are covered - Red Hat legal can comment better however.
> If the real reason for your query is so we can offload "issues" such as the
> usual forbidden item stuff to the user then you are maybe missing the point.
> Fedora doesn't ship software with restrictive licenses, period. The reasons
> for this have been covered before ad infinitum and ad nauseum.

I dont mean its for the official Fedora repos ... Fedora 100%
dedicated to Free software and I love that .. This idea is more for
3rd party sotwares .. like games etc ... by having license agreement
support , i believe it will encourage them to package in RPM instead
of in some installer that only does extraction of files ..

about auto update ... if the package already installed .. just skip
license agreement ..

The two issues are at loggerheads. The Fedora project is about increasing the use of free software and all the mechanisms are in place to handle that from a licensing standpoint. If companies insist on releasing software under closed source or non-OSI licenses that is their right but we should not have to cater for them. If you want software license under other licenses then you generally know where to go.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]