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
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 2008.08.20 20:21, Jim Ramsay wrote:
> 2.5.1 You may not modify, adapt, translate or create derivative
> 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
> [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 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).
libcurl.so.4 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 ?
(NeddySeagoon) a member of
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----