| 1 |
On Sat, 2005-12-24 at 19:35 -0800, Bret Towe wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 12/24/05, Ciaran McCreesh <ciaranm@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 19:17:05 -0800 Bret Towe <magnade@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 4 |
> > | On 12/24/05, Carsten Lohrke <carlo@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > | > This isn't politics, but copyright infringement on top of a |
| 6 |
> > | > ridiculous license (when you want to see it as one) we had a short |
| 7 |
> > | > discussion¹ about several months ago. |
| 8 |
> > | |
| 9 |
> > | im sorry i fail to see how copyright infringement or a ridiculous |
| 10 |
> > | licence matters when commiting a ebuild to portage just pick a |
| 11 |
> > | licence if thats the issue warn the user and leave it at that |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> > Would you like us to add the Windows XP source code to the tree with |
| 14 |
> > LICENSE="gpl-2" as well? |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> whats the point i cant get the same crap from /dev/random |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> sarcasm aside considering its just an ebuild that points to the source |
| 19 |
> which could be not hosted on gentoo mirrors and the LICENCE bit |
| 20 |
> is to notify the user ahead of time what the licence is and, |
| 21 |
> assuming the functionality was there, allow said user to ignore |
| 22 |
> all applications that use that licence type but since that isnt there |
| 23 |
> it could be anything and it doesnt really matter now does it? |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Read my last e-mail, it is a question of culpability do to the |
| 26 |
facilitation of an illegal act, a crime in and of itself, nothing more, |
| 27 |
nothing less. Sure we wouldn't be shipping the actual source, but what |
| 28 |
we would be doing is facilitating your use of said source, which is |
| 29 |
*illegal*. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
Daniel Ostrow |
| 33 |
Gentoo Foundation Board of Trustees |
| 34 |
Gentoo/{PPC,PPC64,DevRel} |
| 35 |
dostrow@g.o |
Archives