| 1 |
IANAL, and I'm sure most of us aren't either, but I would appreciate |
| 2 |
some opinions on Bug https://bugs.gentoo.org/234542 and whether the |
| 3 |
binary patch proposed there conflicts with section 2.5.1 of the license |
| 4 |
agreement from Adobe: |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/pdfs/Reader_Player_WWEULA-Combined-20060724_1430.pdf |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Specifically, here is the passage I'm wondering about: |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
2.5.1 You may not modify, adapt, translate or create derivative works |
| 11 |
based upon the Software. You may not reverse engineer, decompile, |
| 12 |
disassemble or otherwise attempt to discover the source code of the |
| 13 |
Software except to the extent you may be expressly permitted to |
| 14 |
decompile under applicable law, it is essential to do so in order to |
| 15 |
achieve operability of the Software with another software program, and |
| 16 |
you have first requested Adobe to provide the information necessary to |
| 17 |
achieve such operability and Adobe has not made such information |
| 18 |
available. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
I *think* I would be okay using this binary patch since: |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
1) This is specifically to make it operable with libcurl.so.4 |
| 23 |
2) I have (and others have) asked Adobe to recompile it with support |
| 24 |
for libcurl.so.4 instead of libcurl.so.3, but they have not done so (or |
| 25 |
responded to any of these requests, as far as I am aware). |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Anyone care to weigh in, lawyer or not? |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
Jim Ramsay |
| 31 |
Gentoo Developer (rox/fluxbox/gkrellm) |
Archives