| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On 2008.08.20 20:21, Jim Ramsay wrote: |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
[snip] |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
IANAL either. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> 2.5.1 You may not modify, adapt, translate or create derivative |
| 11 |
> works |
| 12 |
> based upon the Software. You may not reverse engineer, decompile, |
| 13 |
> disassemble or otherwise attempt to discover the source code of the |
| 14 |
> Software except to the extent you may be expressly permitted to |
| 15 |
> decompile under applicable law, |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Thats jusrisdiction dependent, it says "under applicable law" - you may |
| 18 |
be allowed to do these things in some regions but not others. |
| 19 |
Presumably Gentoo did not do this anywhere and only wants to mirror the |
| 20 |
resulting patch. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
> [if?] it is essential to do so in order to |
| 23 |
> achieve operability of the Software with another software program, |
| 24 |
> and you have first requested Adobe to provide the information |
| 25 |
> necessary to achieve such operability and Adobe has not made such |
| 26 |
> information available. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Game over ... its not essential by your own admission. You have an |
| 29 |
alternative which you state. |
| 30 |
[snip] |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
> 2) I have (and others have) asked Adobe to recompile it with support |
| 33 |
> for libcurl.so.4 instead of libcurl.so.3, but they have not done so |
| 34 |
> (or responded to any of these requests, as far as I am aware). |
| 35 |
libcurl.so.4 is a nice to have. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
I would liken it to the phrase "best endevours" which should never be |
| 38 |
used between contracting parties. It means none better. You would |
| 39 |
bankrupt the company to achieve the stated aim. (That has been tested |
| 40 |
in a UK court). "all reasonable endevours" is fine because proving that |
| 41 |
more could reasonably have been done is not worth the risk. |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
> |
| 44 |
> Anyone care to weigh in, lawyer or not? |
| 45 |
> |
| 46 |
> -- |
| 47 |
> Jim Ramsay |
| 48 |
> Gentoo Developer (rox/fluxbox/gkrellm) |
| 49 |
> |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
I don't see any of this addressing distribution of a binary patch, |
| 52 |
which is fairly reasonable, as it tries to make it as legally difficult |
| 53 |
to create one as possible, so the possibility of distrubution does not |
| 54 |
occur. |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
Adobe must know the patch exists. Since the above does not appear to |
| 57 |
address the distrubution of a patch that is not supposed to exist, has |
| 58 |
anyone asked Adobe about distrubution of the patch ? |
| 59 |
|
| 60 |
- -- |
| 61 |
Regards, |
| 62 |
|
| 63 |
Roy Bamford |
| 64 |
(NeddySeagoon) a member of |
| 65 |
gentoo-ops |
| 66 |
forum-mods |
| 67 |
treecleaners |
| 68 |
trustees |
| 69 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 70 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) |
| 71 |
|
| 72 |
iEYEARECAAYFAkitYokACgkQTE4/y7nJvasigwCfQrSWwGExxN3RPm4PEJfWLZ8Y |
| 73 |
dMwAn2DbnY/hOcRmnHOXDdbCqhxkAoBk |
| 74 |
=wdXq |
| 75 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives