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
Lists: gentoo-nfp: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
To: gentoo-nfp@g.o
From: Roy Bamford <neddyseagoon@g.o>
Subject: Re: Fw: [gentoo-dev] License Interpretation
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 13:41:35 +0100
Hash: SHA1

On 2008.08.20 20:21, Jim Ramsay wrote:


IANAL either.
> 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,

Thats jusrisdiction dependent, it says "under applicable law" - you may 
be allowed to do these things in some regions but not others. 
Presumably Gentoo did not do this anywhere and only wants to mirror the 
resulting patch.

> [if?] 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.

Game over ... its not essential by your own admission. You have an 
alternative which you state.

> 2) I have (and others have) asked Adobe to recompile it with support
> for instead of, but they have not done so
> (or responded to any of these requests, as far as I am aware). is a nice to have.

I would liken it to the phrase "best endevours" which should never be 
used between contracting parties. It means none better. You would 
bankrupt the company to achieve the stated aim. (That has been tested 
in a UK court). "all reasonable endevours" is fine because proving that 
more could reasonably have been done is not worth the risk. 

> Anyone care to weigh in, lawyer or not?
> -- 
> Jim Ramsay
> Gentoo Developer (rox/fluxbox/gkrellm)

I don't see any of this addressing distribution of a binary patch, 
which is fairly reasonable, as it tries to make it as legally difficult 
to create one as possible, so the possibility of distrubution does not 

Adobe must know the patch exists. Since the above does not appear to 
address the distrubution of a patch that is not supposed to exist, has 
anyone asked Adobe about distrubution of the patch ?

- -- 

Roy Bamford
(NeddySeagoon) a member of
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)


Re: Fw: [gentoo-dev] License Interpretation
-- Jim Ramsay
Fw: [gentoo-dev] License Interpretation
-- Jim Ramsay
Lists: gentoo-nfp: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Previous by thread:
Fw: [gentoo-dev] License Interpretation
Next by thread:
Re: Fw: [gentoo-dev] License Interpretation
Previous by date:
Fw: [gentoo-dev] License Interpretation
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.