Re: dpkg/license related proposal
> >This would be VERY irritating.
> >Such FEATURE is already part of M$Win98.
> >If someone want to read a licence he knows where to find it.
>
> The motivation behind this is due to certain in-duh-viduals being
> completely clueless about the GPL and other licensing issues. IMHO, it
> indicates that there needs to be a method to inform users. It's designed
> to inform and to protect, not to irritate.
>
> Further, by having licenses as say a package, it offers a measure of control
> over how many licenses are involved. Not being too into all the legals, I'll
> make a statement which may result in being pelted with tomatoes but anyways,
> unlikes the world of windoze, (from what I've observed) there's not that many
> licenses involved and since my proposal's a read only if user didn't read thing,
> it shouldn't theoretically be that bad.
>
> The GPL's an important part of open source infrastructure, it should be promoted
> and enforced, let's not hide it.
But we're not hiding it. To me the point of GPL is so normal users
can do sensible things with software and to reduce the
amount of legal noise and "blindly agreeing to licenses"
that commercial software ever buries us with.
Let's _reduce_ the amount of printouts-- they tend to hide bugs and
warnings.
The "let's not hide it" attitude forces everyone to yell--
to be seen over the megabyte of dpkg output
all error messages will have to be in
bold, blinking red in all caps.
Blech.
- Dave
Reply to: