An idea for RPM -> License Agreement support

[Chris Brown]

On 30/05/07, Hikaru Amano <kagesenshi.87 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'm not sure if i missed it .. anyway .. here goes
>
> it would be useful to Third Parties if RPM have the ability to ask for
> License Agreement before installing their package. I'm not a lawyer
> but I believe this is useful in legal related stuff when distributing
> softwares. I have seen a few RPM that are stored .bin just for the
> sake of license agreement (Sun Java is the easiest example) and with
> RPM having (optional) license agreement before installation , this
> would reduce their worries bout licensing when packaging app for
> Linux.
>
> and  ... Linux newbies can avoid the terminal more (I know this sounds
> silly, the moment somebody says open terminal and run "chmod +x
> file.bin", certain users freaks out , double clicking RPM is easier to
> explain ).
>
> any comments?


I doubt the reason Sun Java supplies their installer as an executable binary
is so that the license is read and agreed to. All packages are subject to
license review before inclusion into Fedora and as you agree/acknowledge
that Fedora is provided as a distribution under the GPLv2 at install time I
think license issues are covered - Red Hat legal can comment better however.
If the real reason for your query is so we can offload "issues" such as the
usual forbidden item stuff to the user then you are maybe missing the point.
Fedora doesn't ship software with restrictive licenses, period. The reasons
for this have been covered before ad infinitum and ad nauseum.

Chris



-- 
http://www.chruz.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20070530/a0322bdd/attachment.htm>