Richard A Downing wrote: > On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 17:17:06 -0700 > Archaic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 05:29:38PM -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote: >> >>>I'd like to get other opinions. >> >>I am in adamant agreement with Randy on this. I have devised a method >>by which I script the install, but intentionally doing so doesn't >>allow me to claim ignorance of what I have done and therefore the >>continued use of the software still means I agreed with the license. >> >>However, as a book, we should not make any attempts to circumvent the >>license, or the reading/accepting of the license, for scriptability. >>We aren't writing scripts, but rather a book of instructions. >>Scripting is an exercise that should be left to the reader. >> > > > Archaic and Randy are right on this IMO. You may be open to a law suit > if you 'script' to defeat the licence acceptance and someone pleads > that they didn't realise the license terms for that reason. I'm not at > all sure of passing 'yes' in a script either, now it's been brought up. > > It's not likely that the licencors will sue you, but someone they > litigate against for a gross breach may cross-sue you to mitigate the > damages. (I admit doing it, but didn't realise because...) > > IANAL (I am not a lawyer)
Me either. That's three against. We do this in three packages: general/prog/jdk.xml, pst/ps/fop.xml, and multimedia/audioutils/freetts.xml. Whatever we ultimately decide, we need to do it in all three packages. In jdk, we don't explain why the 'yes' is there. In fop, we explain: "The yes command is piped through so that you don't have to scroll through four pages of the license agreement and automatically responds “yes” to the agreement." In freetts, we say: "yes is piped so that this command can be scripted and will automatically agree to the JSAPI license terms. You can view the license you are agreeing to at http://linuxfromscratch.org/~randy/jsapi-license.txt."; Here are the options as I see them: 1. Remove the yes construct completely. 2. Make the packages conform to the method of freetts. 2a. Promote the explanation of 2 to an <important> section right before the actual script. 3. Explain the method in a <note> without putting it actually in the <screen> section. My preference is for 2a or 3. IMO, most people are just going to scroll through the license anyway and not read it. I don't see a problem with telling people who don't want to read it how to skip it. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
