On Feb 3, 2:09 pm, Tom Boothby <tomas.boot...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I definitely think that a passive approach is better. Debian, for example,
> has their repositories split into "free" and "non-free". I believe that
> this would be the best solution to this problem.
>
> Click-through interactive licensing agreements are no stronger than passive
> licenses. The law is the law, and claiming ignorance is never a defense
> unless the law / license is deliberately obscured. Since we're not
> obliterating the license file, if we put the package into a non-free repo
> there should be no problems.
There is no such indication of any spkg in optional if it is "free" or
"non free". And the the problem is not if if such a license agreement
is legally binding or not, the point is that the user should be given
a chance to not violate nauty's license since it is unique for any
software that is part of the Sage universe.
Cheers,
Michael
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
sage-devel-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel
URLs: http://www.sagemath.org
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
