Gentoo Logo
Gentoo Spaceship




Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date. GMANE provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.
c.f. bug 424647
List Archive: gentoo-nfp
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-nfp: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Headers:
To: gentoo-nfp@g.o
From: Jim Ramsay <lack@g.o>
Subject: Fw: [gentoo-dev] License Interpretation
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 15:21:03 -0400
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
license.

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 <lack@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@g.o
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:

http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/pdfs/Reader_Player_WWEULA-Combined-20060724_1430.pdf

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
available.

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?

-- 
Jim Ramsay
Gentoo Developer (rox/fluxbox/gkrellm)
Attachment:
signature.asc (PGP signature)
Replies:
Re: Fw: [gentoo-dev] License Interpretation
-- Roy Bamford
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-nfp: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Previous by thread:
Software in Public Interest, cont...
Next by thread:
Re: Fw: [gentoo-dev] License Interpretation
Previous by date:
Re: Software in Public Interest, cont...
Next by date:
Re: Fw: [gentoo-dev] License Interpretation


Updated Jun 17, 2009

Summary: Archive of the gentoo-nfp mailing list.

Donate to support our development efforts.

Copyright 2001-2013 Gentoo Foundation, Inc. Questions, Comments? Contact us.