Re: dpkg/license related proposal
In article <Pine.LNX.email@example.com>,
David Benson <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> 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
Ok, poor choice of words on my part.
s/let's not hide it//g
>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.
In an ideal world I could sort of agree with you. But we're
currently in a situation where lots of companies are jumping onto the
Linux bandwagan and many of these folks are totally (fill in the blanks)
with the GPL and they end up violating things left right and center.
People who don't know anything about open source are trying out Linux
and all sorts of things can happen.
>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.
If we have it set up so that license packages are predepends and just
have the license package's post config script spew out that license PLUS
use debconf then this wouldn't be an issue for you, no?