setting it in the easyconfig file to false and then installing it with
--try-amend=accept=True might work (but you have a copy with the
accept=True; so if you then do more --try-amend=version=newest on this
copy, not sure what you are doing then).
the danger in this is probably not in accepting the download (but IANAL
either), but there are some initiaves that are now to start packaging
easybuild installation, and without strict checks on the license, we are
one small step away from distributing java ourself (which is certainly
not ok).
i think some linux distributions get or got away with this in the past,
but they had aggreements with oracle (or was it still sun?).
(i vaguely remember one of the SL maintainers mentioning this).
stijn
On 03/16/2015 10:38 PM, Fotis Georgatos wrote:
Hi Malcolm,
On Mar 16, 2015, at 9:29 PM, Malcolm Cook <[email protected]> wrote:
I still am not entirely sure about the LEGAL aspect of this... does
un-commenting a line of code serve as well as clicking a checkbox on a web page
for accepting a software license?
IANAL, yet my take is that, if it is well documented about what is the
implication of removing
that hash mark, it is equivalent from the legal point of view of accepting the
license itself
(corollary: clicking a “YES” button does not invalidate the EULA because you
did not read it!)
IMHO, all this would be good practice if it is considered as an extension,
distributed separately from the mainstream easybuild repos (to keep
foundational code isolated).
Fotis
