I think i also wrote something about the difference between liceses which restrict using and those which restrict distribution.
On Wed, Nov 26, 2003 at 09:18:35AM -0800, Bob Miller wrote: > Christian Birchinger wrote: > > > It might sound a bit rude but i think the defaults should be > > defined that most of the time only zealots need to tweak > > them. I think most users don't care about most licenses and > > shouldn't need to mess with this. > > I've seen several people express this attitude, and I like it a lot. > > Let me tell you about my retirement plan. I'm going to write a game, > Linux-only, make it good enough that a few hundred of you will emerge > it and try it out. Then I'll change the license agreement so that > next time you emerge the game you'll owe me $1million US. Since > you all have ACCEPT_LICENSES="*" as the default, you'll all accept my > new license, I'll take you all to court (after subpoenaing apache logs > from all the mirrors so I know who you are, and subpoenaing your > make.conf and make.globals to prove you accepted the license), and sue > you for my license fee. If I can recover 1% of what you'll all owe > me, I'll be happy enough. > > Okay, that's NOT REALLY my plan. I'm at least slightly ethical. (-: > But it illustrates why you don't under any circumstances want > ACCEPT_LICENSES="*", either as the default or as an option. Accepting > a license has consequences, and those consequences can hurt you.* I'd > recommend against letting the parser recognize a wildcard for licenses > -- there's just too much danger for people who don't know any better > to hurt themselves. > > That's my opinion. It's worth what you paid for it. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
