List Archive: gentoo-nfp
Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date.
provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.c.f. bug 424647
Antarus suggested I get your opinion on this, since in theory you are
the body who would be held accountable if I am misinterpreting the
Thanks for your input! I will not add the patch mentioned until I hear
a definite 'aye' from you folks.
Begin forwarded message:
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 15:10:18 -0400
From: Jim Ramsay <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: [gentoo-dev] License Interpretation
IANAL, and I'm sure most of us aren't either, but I would appreciate
some opinions on Bug https://bugs.gentoo.org/234542 and whether the
binary patch proposed there conflicts with section 2.5.1 of the license
agreement from Adobe:
Specifically, here is the passage I'm wondering about:
2.5.1 You may not modify, adapt, translate or create derivative works
based upon the Software. You may not reverse engineer, decompile,
disassemble or otherwise attempt to discover the source code of the
Software except to the extent you may be expressly permitted to
decompile under applicable law, it is essential to do so in order to
achieve operability of the Software with another software program, and
you have first requested Adobe to provide the information necessary to
achieve such operability and Adobe has not made such information
I *think* I would be okay using this binary patch since:
1) This is specifically to make it operable with libcurl.so.4
2) I have (and others have) asked Adobe to recompile it with support
for libcurl.so.4 instead of libcurl.so.3, but they have not done so (or
responded to any of these requests, as far as I am aware).
Anyone care to weigh in, lawyer or not?
Gentoo Developer (rox/fluxbox/gkrellm)