Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Jim Ramsay <lack@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@g.o
Subject: [gentoo-dev] License Interpretation
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 19:10:30
Message-Id: 20080820151018.05814626@vrm378-02
1 IANAL, and I'm sure most of us aren't either, but I would appreciate
2 some opinions on Bug and whether the
3 binary patch proposed there conflicts with section 2.5.1 of the license
4 agreement from Adobe:
8 Specifically, here is the passage I'm wondering about:
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.
20 I *think* I would be okay using this binary patch since:
22 1) This is specifically to make it operable with
23 2) I have (and others have) asked Adobe to recompile it with support
24 for instead of, but they have not done so (or
25 responded to any of these requests, as far as I am aware).
27 Anyone care to weigh in, lawyer or not?
29 --
30 Jim Ramsay
31 Gentoo Developer (rox/fluxbox/gkrellm)


File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] License Interpretation Robert Bridge <robert@××××××××.com>
Re: [gentoo-dev] License Interpretation Richard Freeman <rich0@g.o>
Re: [gentoo-dev] License Interpretation Richard Freeman <rich0@g.o>
Re: [gentoo-dev] License Interpretation Sven Vermeulen <swift@g.o>
Re: [gentoo-dev] License Interpretation Jim Ramsay <lack@g.o>