1 |
25.12.2005, 3:11:53, Bret Towe wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> i can understand putting proper warning in the ebuild if the dev thinks |
4 |
> that its worth the user really noting the issues surrounding it, not |
5 |
> forcing their ideals onto the user if i wanted that i would run debian |
6 |
|
7 |
Erm, we are not forcing our ideal on users, we simple refuse to commit an |
8 |
ebuild for code which has no valid license. |
9 |
|
10 |
For those unfamiliar with the whole thing (Bug 52882, Bug 94477 and tons of |
11 |
dupes): Someone has forked a proprietary code with a sucky license, |
12 |
relicensed it under fake LGPL for the sole purpose of being able to host the |
13 |
project on SF, and even explicitely acknowledges that what he's doing is |
14 |
illegal: |
15 |
|
16 |
--- COPYING ------ |
17 |
Due to the license <License.htm>, so I can't make it public, |
18 |
Last November, I decided to register mac-port at SourceForge, |
19 |
so I had to choose an open source license, so I chosen LGPL |
20 |
for this mac-port. It is close to the original license, |
21 |
but doesn't get the permission from the original author, Matt. |
22 |
|
23 |
This license would be changed when the author asks in the |
24 |
future. |
25 |
------------------ |
26 |
|
27 |
What the heck kind of license and behaviour is the above? And why should |
28 |
Gentoo ship such crap? |
29 |
|
30 |
-- |
31 |
Best regards, |
32 |
|
33 |
Jakub Moc |
34 |
mailto:jakub@g.o |
35 |
GPG signature: http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCEBA3D9E |
36 |
Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95 B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E |
37 |
|
38 |
... still no signature ;) |