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----- |